View Full Version : The Libertarian Party’s 2019 State of the Union Address
About 9 mins. Very little of this I disagree with, but as with any form of government, there will never be a purely Libertarian government because humans are involved... As always, don't agree 100% of the time, but I still find myself agreeing with most of it, and in my view, modern day Libertarian is closer to old school GOP, which is financially "conservative" and socially "liberal."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=522&v=vv5WlhnIohg
About 9 mins. Very little of this I disagree with, but as with any form of government, there will never be a purely Libertarian government because humans are involved... As always, don't agree 100% of the time, but I still find myself agreeing with most of it, and in my view, modern day Libertarian is closer to old school GOP, which is financially "conservative" and socially "liberal."
https://www.lp.org/sotu2019/
Based on the written text at that link, it sounds like they want open borders. That is a deal breaker for me. I did not watch the video.
Sounds like they want open borders. That is a deal breaker for me.
It's more nuanced then that, but lets say yes for now. It would never happen as Libertarians envision, The DNC and GOP have a lot of deal breakers for me and others and are "lesser of two evils" party for many, and if any party has only one deal breaker issue, that's pretty damn good in my view. Whether that's the actual position of the Libertarian party, there's variations of it with individual Libertarian politicians, who no doubt may actually find the workable balance. I agree that a sovereign nation needs to control its own borders.
....... and if any party has only one deal breaker issue, that's pretty damn good in my view. I can agree with that as stated, except controlling our borders is my #1 issue today, which makes it a deal breaker for me. Unless we control our borders, everything else is lost, IMO.
I can agree with that as stated, except controlling our borders is my #1 issue today, which makes it a deal breaker for me. Unless we control our borders, everything else is lost, IMO.
Rgr rgr
Based on the written text at that link, it sounds like they want open borders. That is a deal breaker for me. I did not watch the video.
They are for open borders on these premises:
- All property should be private and therefore immigrants are determined by property owners, not government and “public” space.
- All immigrants have same natural rights and should be allowed to travel freely (like our own constitution says).
- Govt assistance programs should never exist.
Now based on those premises, we all get why they aren’t Democrats. And open borders will be a small issue with these points corrected. The Libertarian Party likes to grandstand on this moral virtue without addressing the status quo that creates even greater infractions against liberty. Until they can address the problem, their open border policy is still in the ivory tower.
I'm more Libertarian than anything else, and I support most of their platform, but that was not a good or compelling speech.
Saying government agents along the southern border have committed acts of cruelty that shocked the conscience is a bit over the top, and no one is proposing a prohibition on immigration. We need to control our borders. No one said we need to close our borders.
Saying the Democrats are carening us towards Socialism is true. Saying the Republicans are careening us towards Facism is also a bit of a stretch.
I believe in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, as written, but it sounds like they are trying to play towards our fears just like the other two parties.
Doc Safari
02-06-19, 10:28
Their open border policy turned me off years ago, too.
- Govt assistance programs should never exist.
.
I know I'm going to get flamed for this but...
I have a slight issue with this. Or rather I'm conflicted about it.
As an immigrant gov assistance was of great help. My parents used it to be able to go to school and learn English without having to worry about food and shelter. Aside from food stamps I'm not sure what else was involved since I was a little kid. I do remember my parents weren't thrilled with the idea of food stamps and used them as supplemental form of payment but they did use it. I can't give a precise time frame but we were off of them within a year give or take. It was around the same time we bought a house which was less than two years after arriving. So from personal experience I know it does help.
Aside from that people do suddenly loose work, have unexpected medical bills or other sudden and unexpected problems. Gov assistance can help alleviate some of that stress.
However, I totally get it that people over use it and abuse it. They sit on welfare their whole lives and pump out kids like they're going out of style. They abuse the system thats meant to give temporary help. Not to mention all the illegals coming here for this very reason. Not all but majority. And even if theyre initial plan isn't for handouts but to get on their feet many still get it and get sucked into the welfare cycle
A part of me wants to end that. Just kick them off and theyll either sink or swim. But a part of me knows and understands what it's like to need and receive temporary assistance
Averageman
02-06-19, 11:13
I know I'm going to get flamed for this but...
I have a slight issue with this. Or rather I'm conflicted about it.
As an immigrant gov assistance was of great help. My parents used it to be able to go to school and learn English without having to worry about food and shelter. Aside from food stamps I'm not sure what else was involved since I was a little kid. I do remember my parents weren't thrilled with the idea of food stamps and used them as supplemental form of payment but they did use it. I can't give a precise time frame but we were off of them within a year give or take. It was around the same time we bought a house which was less than two years after arriving. So from personal experience I know it does help.
Aside from that people do suddenly loose work, have unexpected medical bills or other sudden and unexpected problems. Gov assistance can help alleviate some of that stress.
However, I totally get it that people over use it and abuse it. They sit on welfare their whole lives and pump out kids like they're going out of style. They abuse the system thats meant to give temporary help. Not to mention all the illegals coming here for this very reason. Not all but majority. And even if theyre initial plan isn't for handouts but to get on their feet many still get it and get sucked into the welfare cycle
A part of me wants to end that. Just kick them off and theyll either sink or swim. But a part of me knows and understands what it's like to need and receive temporary assistance
The difference between illegal and legal is where that fine line exists. If you did the right thing and passed through legally, well, God Bless you.
I know I'm going to get flamed for this but...
I have a slight issue with this. Or rather I'm conflicted about it.
As an immigrant gov assistance was of great help. My parents used it to be able to go to school and learn English without having to worry about food and shelter. Aside from food stamps I'm not sure what else was involved since I was a little kid. I do remember my parents weren't thrilled with the idea of food stamps and used them as supplemental form of payment but they did use it. I can't give a precise time frame but we were off of them within a year give or take. It was around the same time we bought a house which was less than two years after arriving. So from personal experience I know it does help.
Aside from that people do suddenly loose work, have unexpected medical bills or other sudden and unexpected problems. Gov assistance can help alleviate some of that stress.
However, I totally get it that people over use it and abuse it. They sit on welfare their whole lives and pump out kids like they're going out of style. They abuse the system thats meant to give temporary help. Not to mention all the illegals coming here for this very reason. Not all but majority. And even if theyre initial plan isn't for handouts but to get on their feet many still get it and get sucked into the welfare cycle
A part of me wants to end that. Just kick them off and theyll either sink or swim. But a part of me knows and understands what it's like to need and receive temporary assistance
Glad it worked out for you and your family. That is how it's supposed to be used. Sometimes it's needed, but it should not become a lifestyle. It should be a safety net - not a hammock.
BoringGuy45
02-06-19, 14:23
I hold some common ground with libertarians, but I don't consider myself a libertarian at all. I'm anti-corrupt government and anti-socialist; I certainly believe we can, and should, have a LOT less government than we do now; regulation, taxes, and laws in general are out of control. I'm not anti-government though. An all powerful government is, obviously, a horrible, dangerous situation, but an ungoverned population isn't any better. Both government and citizens need to keep each other in check; mutual distrust.
I hold some common ground with libertarians, but I don't consider myself a libertarian at all. I'm anti-corrupt government and anti-socialist; I certainly believe we can, and should, have a LOT less government than we do now; regulation, taxes, and laws in general are out of control. I'm not anti-government though. An all powerful government is, obviously, a horrible, dangerous situation, but an ungoverned population isn't any better. Both government and citizens need to keep each other in check; mutual distrust.
That's supposed to be the GOP platform, but well, you know...
Five_Point_Five_Six
02-06-19, 14:32
The final nail in the Libertarian party's coffin was putting Gary "I'd make them bake the cake" Johnson and Bill "I support gun control" Weld on the 2016 presidential ticket.
Doc Safari
02-06-19, 14:32
I think people make a mistake expecting ANY party to be truly interested in anything but its own perpetuation.
Doc Safari
02-06-19, 14:33
The final nail in the Libertarian party's coffin was putting Gary "I'd make them bake the cake" Johnson and Bill "I support gun control" Weld on the 2016 presidential ticket.
That certainly didn't help. Gary Johnson is flakier than a snowstorm.
The final nail in the Libertarian party's coffin was putting Gary "I'd make them bake the cake" Johnson and Bill "I support gun control" Weld on the 2016 presidential ticket.
The sad thing is, both those stances are completely opposite of true Libertarian ideals. They were as much Libertarian as the hildbeast was Centrist.
I am not a republican but will vote that way more independent
problem with the libertarian is they tend to be conservative and take from that and have no chance on winning ?
yeah its nice to vote what you feel and that is what its about BUT its also stupid to give the worse side the advantage work on libertarian things on a local level where one might have more chance and control cause it is not going to happen anytime soon I would be willing to bet
Small 'l' libertarian yes. Libertarian party? Yeah, that's a no from me dawg.
The gun control issue and especially the general pro-choice stance is more than enough to relegate the party to be the Losertarians. I consider them to be amoral and I'd be happy if they just faded away.
The gun control issue and especially the general pro-choice stance is more than enough to relegate the party to be the Losertarians. I consider them to be amoral and I'd be happy if they just faded away.
No group is more pro 2A than Libertarians, so I not tracking there. Being pro choice, is an obvious result of the general Libertarian philosophy, but there have been some who split from the larger Libertarian group who oppose it. Ron Paul, probably the Libertarian (big L) most people know, does not support abortion other then in extreme cases, such as rape etc I recall.
Yes, thank you. Some "L" libs have espoused a flakiness on the 2A which I think someone earlier mentioned and I was aware of Ron Pauls position, which I believe, stems from his Christianity. But isn't the Lib party basically pro-choice?
Yes, thank you. Some "L" libs have espoused a flakiness on the 2A which I think someone earlier mentioned and I was aware of Ron Pauls position, which I believe, stems from his Christianity. But isn't the Lib party basically pro-choice?
I'd say yes, but again, with some caveats that's nothing like say Dems position on the matter:
"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. It is the right of the woman, not the state, to decide the desirability of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, and/or home births."
Libertarians are pro choice not because they believe/agree with abortion per se, they simply feel it's not the governments place to be part of it, be it funding it, or preventing it. However, see:
Why I Am a Pro-Life Libertarian
Rand Paul gets attacked for being pro-liberty and anti-abortion. But there's nothing inconsistent about his view.
https://reason.com/blog/2015/08/14/sorry-rand-paul-haters-pro-life-libertar
thopkins22
02-06-19, 16:15
The gun control issue and especially the general pro-choice stance is more than enough to relegate the party to be the Losertarians. I consider them to be amoral and I'd be happy if they just faded away.
I guarantee you that 99% of libertarians favor fewer gun control laws than 99% of republicans. Frankly I’d wager that they favor fewer gun control laws than probably 60% of this forum.
I don’t really think you understand libertarianism at all, based on your post...and you calling them “libs.” Libertarians make you look like a progressive democrat on many if not most issues.
I guarantee you that 99% of libertarians favor fewer gun control laws than 99% of republicans. Frankly I’d wager that they favor fewer gun control laws than probably 60% of this forum.
I don’t really think you understand libertarianism at all, based on your post...and you calling them “libs.” Libertarians make you look like a progressive democrat on many if not most issues.
It may be as you say, but I do know that some libertarians have promoted gun control. I understand generally speaking the Libertartian party is quite pro-gun. As for the second part, not quite sure what your getting at...I used libs as short hand for libertarian. I don't identify as Republican and especially not Democrat. My particular view of government would be beyond radical for everyone here including the Christians.
I'd say yes, but again, with some caveats that's nothing like say Dems position on the matter:
"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. It is the right of the woman, not the state, to decide the desirability of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, and/or home births."
Libertarians are pro choice not because they believe/agree with abortion per se, they simply feel it's not the governments place to be part of it, be it funding it, or preventing it. However, see:
Why I Am a Pro-Life Libertarian
Rand Paul gets attacked for being pro-liberty and anti-abortion. But there's nothing inconsistent about his view.
https://reason.com/blog/2015/08/14/sorry-rand-paul-haters-pro-life-libertar
The no gov't interference in abortion would axe it for me. Abortion is a really critical issue for me and I believe a proper gov't should flat out outlaw it.
Doc Safari
02-06-19, 16:40
The no gov't interference in abortion would axe it for me. Abortion is a really critical issue for me and I believe a proper gov't should flat out outlaw it.
I have to agree here. Saying murder is a "states rights issue" is worse than saying slavery is a "states rights issue." Welcome to the New Confederacy, with the Libertarian Party at its helm.
thopkins22
02-06-19, 16:51
I have to agree here. Saying murder is a "states rights issue" is worse than saying slavery is a "states rights issue." Welcome to the New Confederacy, with the Libertarian Party at its helm.
And how well is it working out for people with this hyper-religious viewpoint? Past forty-five years of it being a federal issue has obviously worked out super well for you. [emoji23]
I mean...states handle every other murder, and they handle it effectively. Personally, I’m actively in favor of abortion’s being available and cheap. It has pretty clearly resulted in lower crime rates and fewer people on government assistance. But I don’t believe in using the government to advance my personal belief system on other people either.
Edit:I’m being a little facetious by saying I’m in favor of it. I just find it such a weird thing for a bunch of dudes to get our panties twisted up about.
Doc Safari
02-06-19, 16:52
And how well is it working out for people with this hyper-religious viewpoint? Past forty-five years of it being a federal issue has obviously worked out super well for you. [emoji23]
I mean...states handle every other murder, and they handle it effectively.
"Working out for me" isn't the point. Opposing a barbaric, immoral, and evil practice is.
thopkins22
02-06-19, 16:59
"Working out for me" isn't the point. Opposing a barbaric, immoral, and evil practice is.
I just don’t find it to be any of those things...at all.
But how it’s working out for you IS the point. Let’s say you oppose it because it is barbaric and “evil.” One path, would lead to significantly fewer abortions in probably half of the states or even more than half. Outright bans in some. But because you’re so strongly opposed, you chose the path that will simply never lead to it being banned anywhere(I’ll bet you large sums of money on this right now...regardless of who gets on the Supreme Court.)
I’m not saying it makes you complacent or anything like that...hell I vote Libertarian most of the time(unless it’s a choice like Beto vs. Cruz.) But I understand that my vote won’t matter, and that is perfectly fine with me.
Based on the written text at that link, it sounds like they want open borders. That is a deal breaker for me. I did not watch the video.
This is why the Libertarian Party goes nowhere. They always seem to have 1/2/3 stupid issues that are deal breakers for most sane adults. In the past it was drug legalization, now it is open borders, which of course is directly related to drug legalization.
Doc Safari
02-06-19, 17:01
I just don’t find it to be any of those things...at all.
But how it’s working out for you IS the point. Let’s say you oppose it because it is barbaric and “evil.” One path, would lead to significantly fewer abortions in probably half of the states or even more than half. Outright bans in some. But because you’re so strongly opposed, you chose the path that will simply never lead to it being banned anywhere(I’ll bet you large sums of money on this right now...regardless of who gets on the Supreme Court.)
I’m not saying it makes you complacent or anything like that...hell I vote Libertarian most of the time(unless it’s a choice like Beto vs. Cruz.) But I understand that my vote won’t matter, and that is perfectly fine with me.
I see your point. You are saying my attitude isn't the practical way to a ban. Perhaps you're right.
It won't change my view.
Anyway, I'm dropping the subject. I suspect this could turn into a pro vs. anti-abortion free-for-all until the thread gets locked and out of respect for the OP I'll just say we can "agree to disagree" on abortion.
thopkins22
02-06-19, 17:08
I see your point. You are saying my attitude isn't the practical way to a ban. Perhaps you're right.
It won't change my view.
Anyway, I'm dropping the subject. I suspect this could turn into a pro vs. anti-abortion free-for-all until the thread gets locked and out of respect for the OP I'll just say we can "agree to disagree" on abortion.
Absolutely. Honestly I respect your resolve, despite lacking the framework in my brain to really understand it. I think it’s a lot like someone who hunts or raises his own food talking to a vegan. They will never agree, but in many ways if the other side has a reasoned and well thought out perspective they leave with more respect for the other than if they were talking to someone who only buys meat from the grocery store and never gives any thought to what it means.
The sad thing is, both those stances are completely opposite of true Libertarian ideals. They were as much Libertarian as the hildbeast was Centrist.
Exactly. Their written platform is *NOTHING* like it was in the 1990's either. Now it is much closer to Democrat and Republican platforms.
GOP has wanted old school little "l" libertarian votes for years, they just don't want any libertarian positions to become reality.
Rather obvious they were going to crap in 2008 when their website had among their list of accomplishments as initiating a grass roots effort to boot out congressional incumbents with, no kidding, Bob Barr specifically named.
Used to be the biggest gripe with them from members of other parties was getting .gov out of the drug business. For many R&D disciples, the LP's actual decriminalization position wasn't bad enough so it would get twisted into something teetering on forcing people to use drugs.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-06-19, 17:20
The gun control issue and especially the general pro-choice stance is more than enough to relegate the party to be the Losertarians. I consider them to be amoral and I'd be happy if they just faded away.
Amoral is fine, as long as you are consistently amoral. I do think that there is an objective reality and morality. Not everyone agrees with that or what that means in practice, so you end up with moral relativism- it would just be better with less noise around it.
Anyway, the real issue is that Libertarianism is so far out of sync with what is, that it is more of a belief system than a way to govern- since you can't be a half-way crook or Libertarian. The borders and welfare is a great example. So you need a sweeping change, or it doesn't work.
The other issue is how you sell it. People can agree that the concept would work, but getting them to give up free stuff (and listen to Milton Friedman talk about how programs that are to help the poor usually end up benefiting higher class people (benefits and/or employment/contracts) as much or more).
That is a tough sell. Taxing the Be-Jesus out of the rich is a lot more appealing path forward.
The beauty of the GOP was that they wrapped the big concepts of Libertarianism into an attractive package. The problem is the dems imported voters and promised enough free stuff to win elections- and the GOP finally dropped the Libertarianism principles to feed at the trough.
This is why the Libertarian Party goes nowhere. They always seem to have 1/2/3 stupid issues that are deal breakers for most sane adults. In the past it was drug legalization, now it is open borders, which of course is directly related to drug legalization.
As do the Dems and GOP, hence why I'm a Independent as a voter, libertarian in most issues, but not all. On the big issues, I agree with Libertarians more then I do DNC or GOP at this time. If the GOP ever got back to its roots of being fiscally "conservative" and socially "liberal" they'd have my support and millions of others. I support the GOP more than the Dems by a long way at the moment, as (1) the Dems have lost their f-ing minds and are getting worse by the minute and (2) at the heart of it, GOP has more in common with Libertarian ideals, large L and small.
It's like this: if one puts a premium on Liberty and personal Freedoms as the Founders and Const outlines, you'd support Libertarians. If you really want to see smaller Gov, you'd support Libertarians. Reduced/no gun laws, that's Libertarians, and so forth, sorta what the GOP pretends to offer, and never delivers on, and never will. If you think Gov has the Right or the ability to tell you what one person can do with their body (like or not, agree or not), but will not then move onto telling you what you can do, then one is is denial and ignoring how that works once Gov gets it's hooks in as we have all seen over and over.
People freak out over bump stocks due to the obvious slipperly slope it presents for further gun control, but can't apparently see the slippery slope on other issues...
I don't have to like you nor agree with you, I just have to tolerate you, unless your action directly impact my own "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as that now infringes on my Const Rights, we have a problem.
I do not think that Libertarian ideals in it's purest form could work in the real world, but that's no different then any form of government when humans are involved.
On the abortion Q, one thing we all agree on is, less pregnancy = fewer abortions, and that's where I think the focus should be in that's one area no one disputes. How to accomplish that is another matter.
I'd still support libertarian approaches the issue, work on reducing the numbers by reducing pregnancy rates, and per before, there are various Libertarians who are not pro choice.
Anyway, that's all I will say on the issue and mods can lock if they feel it's not a productive discussion.
Amoral is fine, as long as you are consistently amoral. I do think that there is an objective reality and morality. Not everyone agrees with that or what that means in practice, so you end up with moral relativism- it would just be better with less noise around it.
Anyway, the real issue is that Libertarianism is so far out of sync with what is, that it is more of a belief system than a way to govern- since you can't be a half-way crook or Libertarian. The borders and welfare is a great example. So you need a sweeping change, or it doesn't work.
The other issue is how you sell it. People can agree that the concept would work, but getting them to give up free stuff (and listen to Milton Friedman talk about how programs that are to help the poor usually end up benefiting higher class people (benefits and/or employment/contracts) as much or more).
That is a tough sell. Taxing the Be-Jesus out of the rich is a lot more appealing path forward.
The beauty of the GOP was that they wrapped the big concepts of Libertarianism into an attractive package. The problem is the dems imported voters and promised enough free stuff to win elections- and the GOP finally dropped the Libertarianism principles to feed at the trough.
The most accurate and useful sentence in this thread. The GOP does not appear to even pretend anymore from what I can gather, other then perhaps Rand Paul in terms of wanting to follow the basic ideals of libertarianism (which as you rightly point out is more of a belief system than a way to govern per se) which is much closer to the ideals set out by the Founders.
The typical GOP voter's aversion to the Libertarian party is always claimed to be at least 1 of: drugs, abortion, open borders.
The latter 2 have historically had GOP complicity so that really leaves drugs. So, assuming the GOP booster is being honest, they are support a plethora of anti-freedom positions (anti gun laws and higher taxes to name a couple that are "bad" when democrats do them) being kept on the books by their own party in order to keep up the war on drugs.
This last one has always been kind of interesting considering many of the staunchest people on that issue I have ever come across tend to ingest mood altering drugs, alcohol or prescription and often quite heavily.
A former co-worker, had a headache or some other pain one day and popped out a pill bottle with a dozen or more different capsules and tablets. My WTF? inquiry got the explanation that it was a mix of pain killers, sleeping aids, and antibiotics that friends and family hadn't finished. When I pointed out I recalled her supporting incarceration for people doing exactly the same thing (up to and including that very same week) I was assured that it somehow wasn't the same thing.
thopkins22
02-06-19, 20:12
When I pointed out I recalled her supporting incarceration for people doing exactly the same thing (up to and including that very same week) I was assured that it somehow wasn't the same thing.
Yep. Almost every anti-decriminalization/anti-legalization person I know has at one point accepted a controlled substance from another person. Even drugs for which you are prescribed and simply don’t have with you...and they’ve committed a felony.
He GOP is killing itself on drugs and gays, with positions that aren’t even conservative. And they’re shooting themselves in the foot by taking various abortion laws out of context. It’s often the equivalent of PETA slaughterhouse videos which is rarely the normal reality.
The libertarian party’s roll might not be to ever actually lead and hold office. But they definitely alter the debate. As an example there are many times more libertarian leaning members of Congress today than there were before Ron Paul ran for president. Whether or not you liked him, he had a very real impact on the Republican electorate, particularly the young voters.
I find myself a freedom loving American that wants to limit government, but sees government as necessary.
I hate the EPA costing me money on my trucks, but I love the fact that the EPA cleaned up this country significantly in the last 50 years. No more Love Canals, no more burning rivers, you can breath the air in L.A. now, etc.. etc.. I would love to think that individuals left to their own devices would have accomplished this, but it took the heavy hand of government to really make it happen.
I hate the fact that the U.S. Government "owns" so much of the western U.S. lands, but I love the fact that as an American I have a unique opportunity to recreate on public lands that much of the world does not get the privilege to do.
Without government funded research and development, there is a bunch of medical and engineering discoveries that would not have happened.
I could go on and on, but if one really sits down and thinks of the successes this country has had in the last 100 years, a bunch of it is the result of a government that actually works pretty well despite all of its warts.
thopkins22
02-06-19, 22:32
I find myself a freedom loving American that wants to limit government, but sees government as necessary.
I hate the EPA costing me money on my trucks, but I love the fact that the EPA cleaned up this country significantly in the last 50 years. No more Love Canals, no more burning rivers, you can breath the air in L.A. now, etc.. etc.. I would love to think that individuals left to their own devices would have accomplished this, but it took the heavy hand of government to really make it happen.
I hate the fact that the U.S. Government "owns" so much of the western U.S. lands, but I love the fact that as an American I have a unique opportunity to recreate on public lands that much of the world does not get the privilege to do.
Without government funded research and development, there is a bunch of medical and engineering discoveries that would not have happened.
I could go on and on, but if one really sits down and thinks of the successes this country has had in the last 100 years, a bunch of it is the result of a government that actually works pretty well despite all of its warts.
I would argue that we could have cleaned it up anyway through tort. In fact many instances have shown that there is tremendous incentive for polluting companies to have a regulatory scheme in place to limit civil liability.
I agree completely about public lands. It’s my biggest ideological dilemma, and I don’t even get to take very much advantage of it because I live in Texas with practically zero.
I find myself a freedom loving American that wants to limit government, but sees government as necessary.
I hate the EPA costing me money on my trucks, but I love the fact that the EPA cleaned up this country significantly in the last 50 years. No more Love Canals, no more burning rivers, you can breath the air in L.A. now, etc.. etc.. I would love to think that individuals left to their own devices would have accomplished this, but it took the heavy hand of government to really make it happen.
I hate the fact that the U.S. Government "owns" so much of the western U.S. lands, but I love the fact that as an American I have a unique opportunity to recreate on public lands that much of the world does not get the privilege to do.
Without government funded research and development, there is a bunch of medical and engineering discoveries that would not have happened.
I could go on and on, but if one really sits down and thinks of the successes this country has had in the last 100 years, a bunch of it is the result of a government that actually works pretty well despite all of its warts.
Kind of there. Also I try and keep in mind that a LOT of Americans don't share my values and they need to be represented to the same extent I wish to be represented because we all have rights including rights to hold conflicting values and beliefs.
And so long as we don't engage in pure socialism or pure democracy, this is probably as good as it gets and it's been both better and worse in the past. I'd be hard pressed to name another country I'd rather move to with my current means. Now if I had billions of dollars, I'd probably be a citizen of the world with lavish homes in any country that would have me and my wealth safely protected someplace like Switzerland.
Damaging the land of another often constitutes criminal trespass. If my assumption that those laws predate EPA regs, the heavy hand of government only needed to enforce that (jailing the violator and forcing them to compensate the victim) instead of a fine that only constitutes a percentage of income from the violation and often gets kicked back via various grants and incentives.
Damaging the land of another often constitutes criminal trespass. If my assumption that those laws predate EPA regs, the heavy hand of government only needed to enforce that (jailing the violator and forcing them to compensate the victim) instead of a fine that only constitutes a percentage of income from the violation and often gets kicked back via various grants and incentives.
It get's awful complicated when the issue goes airborne or into a waterway. Criminal charges don't force somebody to clean up their mess, that's usually a civil court function. Civil courts have a dismal record of consistently fixing problems, but most of the big cleanups were tried in civil and criminal court. It still took the government to make more stringent laws and use public money to prosecute offenders to clean up. It still took the federal government to step in to places that the local LEO and courts were not willing to prosecute and offender that employed most of the town or county.
I find that most "abolish the EPA" types to be libertarians. I find most of the "abolish the U.S.D.A." types to be libertarians. I can't get on board with this thinking. I know we need to streamline the bloated government, but I also recognize that the government serves a positive purpose.
It get's awful complicated when the issue goes airborne or into a waterway. Criminal charges don't force somebody to clean up their mess, that's usually a civil court function. Civil courts have a dismal record of consistently fixing problems, but most of the big cleanups were tried in civil and criminal court. It still took the government to make more stringent laws and use public money to prosecute offenders to clean up. It still took the federal government to step in to places that the local LEO and courts were not willing to prosecute and offender that employed most of the town or county.
I find that most "abolish the EPA" types to be libertarians. I find most of the "abolish the U.S.D.A." types to be libertarians. I can't get on board with this thinking. I know we need to streamline the bloated government, but I also recognize that the government serves a positive purpose.Then the locals need to get nailed to the wall for assisting the violator. I am certain there never has been a time when there would be any lack of zeal in coming down hard on a peon who damaged the property of the affluent, but flip it around and it is a whole different story.
Sent from my LG-K371 using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.