Ask Kevin What He Thinks
Got a question for Kevin or wonder what he has to say about something? Ask him using the form below.
41 Comments »
Leave a Reply
About
I am a recently married computer technician living in Winder, Georgia. I have a passion for politics, Superman, Seinfeld, and my wife.
-
Recent
- Times are crazy but fear not
- 4 Ways to spend money
- I love being a father
- Government to track truant students via GPS ankle bracelets
- The Forgotten Man of William Graham Sumner
- What daddy has learned so far
- Bill of No Rights
- Hello World! Alexander Thomas Brown
- Some commonly unknown principles in the Constitution
- Does Gun Control Help or Actually Hurt?
- Happy Birthday To America, Freedom, & Liberty
- Could you pass the latest citizenship test?
-
Links
- Neal Boortz
- Jeff Brown and Family
- Amy Brown
- The United States Constitution
- The Page Family
- Darcy Brown
- Katie Brown
- The Drudge Report
- FatWallet.com
- Slickdeals.net
- Political Crossfire Forums
- Bob Barr 2008
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Wikipedia
- eBay
- Amazon.com
- World’s Smallest Political Quiz
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Cato Institute
- Ask Kevin What He Thinks
- Don Page
- The Armstrong Family
-
Archives
- September 2008 (3)
- August 2008 (5)
- July 2008 (4)
- June 2008 (5)
- June 2007 (2)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
What is the difference between the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green party ideals and stances?
The Libertarian and Constitution parties tend to have very similar policies but arrive at those policies in very different ways. The Constitution Party tends puts the US Constitution at the very core of there beliefs. On any issue they ask themselves “what does the Constitution say?” And that’s what they advocate period. The Libertarian Party on the other hand ask “what maximizes freedom?” And that’s what they advocate period.
Since the Constitution was written based on the principles of freedom and liberty Libertarians tend to arrive at the same conclusion as the Constitutionalists but again it’s how they got there that is different and sometimes they do differ even with the conclusion.
An example: Education
The Constitution Party says: “Since the Constitution grants the Federal Government no authority over Education, the 10th Amendment applies:
“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.”
…
Because the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction concerning the education of our children, the United States Department of Education should be abolished;”
The Libertarian Party instead says: “There can be no serious attempt to solve the problem of poverty in America without addressing our failed government-run school system. Nearly forty years after Brown vs. Board of Education, America’s schools are becoming increasingly segregated, not on the basis of race, but on income. Wealthy and middle class parents are able to send their children to private schools, or at least move to a district with better public schools. Poor families are trapped — forced to send their children to a public school system that fails to educate.
It is time to break up the public education monopoly and give all parents the right to decide what school their children will attend. It is essential to restore choice and the discipline of the marketplace to education. Only a free market in education will provide the improvement in education necessary to enable millions of Americans to escape poverty.”
See the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party come to the same conclusion but from two very different angles.
Also Constitutionalists tend to merge religion into there philosophy of what government’s role is. Constitutionalists have morals and are fine with using the coercive power of government to force those morals on others as long as it’s consistent with the Constitution. Libertarians on the other hand individually have morals but they generally don’t use the coercive power of government to force there morals on others.
I’m guessing out of the two of them you would prefer the Constitution Party. You should check them out.
Here’s both the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party websites for more details on where they stand on each issue:
http://www.lp.org/issues
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
Oh and I don’t know much about the green party but they are very different:
http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml
“Constitutionalists have morals and are fine with using the coercive power of government to force those morals on others as long as it’s consistent with the Constitution.”
It sounds like you have an example here that Constitutionalists want to force or what they stand for that you don’t agree with. Can you give it?
Do you think that the US should not be a part of the United Nations?
Also, what should the US or people of the US do if anything in rare cases if Genocide is happening in a part of the world?
And lastly, Would you or liberatarians support or oppose the legalization of suicide or doctor assisted suicide?
An example of government involvement that the Constitutionalists endorse and thus want to force on everyone is drug laws: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Drug%20Abuse
“The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources.”
I recognize the horrible effects of drugs and sincerly wish no one sold or used them but I also recognize that your body belongs to you and no one else. No one else has legitimate authority to regulate what you can and can’t put in your body, you are the only one that has that authority. Drug laws tend to have unintended consequences as well like driving up the costs of drugs which in turn lead to higher profits for sellers. This simply increases the incentives for people to sell drugs and spread them and get people hooked. Crime is also incredibly increased simply because drugs are illegal and the tremendous costs of a “war on drugs” is simply passed on to the tax payers who must fund it. Drug laws also simply don’t work as drug usage in the U.S. is higher than in most countries where they are legal. For all these reasons libertarianism generally opposes drug laws even by the states and localities.
No I don’t think the U.S. should be a part of the United Nations. The United Nations is incredibly corrupt and tends to put the interests of other countries above the United States. We waste billions of dollars on them and it’s all unconstitutionally spent money anyway.
Cases of genocide are tough and get complicated. If the Constitution is followed and the Congress properly declares war, we go in there quickly, only stop the genocide, get out right after the genocide has stopped, don’t build a new government, and don’t stay there for years “policing” then I would compromise to being OK with that. In practice though the opposite of most of those things usually happens thus I almost always oppose intervening.
Libertarians generally support legalization of suicide and doctor assisted suicide. I don’t want anyone to commit suicide but you are the only one that owns your body; no one else has any legimate authority over what you do to your own body. If you want to eat healthy and extend your life you should be just as free to do that as if you want the opposite to happen to your own body.
But you agree that suicide and Doctor assisted suicide is morally wrong and has serious consequences with God right?
Kevin what do you think about Tuesdays being the day for elections?
Jeff – Yes suicide and doctor assisted suicide is morally wrong. It’s just that I don’t necessarily agree to outlaw something just because it’s morally wrong. It’s morally wrong to tell an innocent child that he/she is stupid but I certainly don’t want to outlaw it. There is a fine line between what you shouldn’t do and what should be illegal.
Mike – I’m fine with elections being on a Tuesday but I do think the polls should be open much longer. I think the polls should be open like 5 AM to midnight (maybe even the whole day) so everyone has an opportunity to make it to the polls.
Found this website:
http://www.w3f.com/patriots/serious.html
Can you help me or explain the difference in Income Tax and Graduated Income Tax?
I really don’t know… I’ll try to take a look at it and see if I can figure it out.
How much should the government censor in Media (TV, Internet, Billboards, etc)? If none at all, should society censor and How? Also, should kids be censored to anything and how?
I don’t think government should censor any media at all for many reasons that I won’t fully explain right now.
As far as society censorship goes I’m unsure what exactly you are asking. Could you be more specific? For example if society (meaning a majority of those in power) decides to censor media via laws then I am opposed to it. Yet if society (meaning a majority of individuals) decides to censor media in there own home that is a very good thing. It depends on what you mean by society and how they choose to censor and how they choose to enforce it. I just don’t want said censorship to be forced upon adults.
As far as censoring for kids it depends on who is censoring. Is it the government? Then no, I am opposed to it. Or is it the owner/patriarch of the house that is censoring in his own home? Then yes censoring should happen. Parents have a responsibility to protect there children from indecent material in there home but laws that attempt to do that for parents just steals the responsibility away from the party that should be responsible, parents, and gives it to another party of strangers: politicians and bureaucrats which frankly should not be trusted with something as important as protecting your child from indecent material. Government is no substitute for parents nor are censorship laws a substitute for what should be taught in the home.
Indecent material is all over the place and it should be avoided by all as it desensitizes and encourgaes those that watch it to violence, vile speech, and immoral acts. However the choice to avoid such things should be a voluntary decision you make as free individual practicing personal responsibility and excercising your agency your Heavenly Father has blessed you with.
I agree parents can protect kids from indecent material in the home, but what about outside the home?
And I agree that government shouldn’t take away the responsibility that parents have. And also that teaching should be done in the home, but what about teaching that goes on outside the home.
I guess my main question is if government should have no say in censorship, then with today’s world, can parents really protect their kids while outside the home from all the bad exposure that is out there?
You might say that that cannot happen even now, even with the laws we have, and I would probably agree, but do you think without those laws in place, do you think our kids will more likely be exposed to indecent material more often and/or in worse ways?
Like what is to stop a kid (under 18 year old) from buying alcohol, and/or cigarettes if there is no law to stop them? It has been proven that it can be an addiction after just 1. Or what is to stop an indecent billboard from being put up for all to see? Or to stop pornography from being displayed anywhere and everywhere?
Not only would kids, but adults as well will become more exposed to indecent material that will desensitize and encourge those to violence, vile speech, and immoral acts.
No, parents can’t protect there kids while outside the home from all bad exposure, it’s impossible. Not even all the laws in the world would even come close to accomplishing that.
In response to this: “do you think without those laws in place, do you think our kids will more likely be exposed to indecent material more often and/or in worse ways?”
I honestly have not seen any convincing evidence that censorship laws actually lessen the overall exposure kids or anyone has to indecent material. I’m seriously inclined to think they actually increase it overall. I truly believe that all censorship laws do is drive the price of indecent material up which in turn drives up the profits for anyone providing it. All this does is create extra strong incentives for people to produce and provide indecent material even more. Think about if it were all legal and there we no government restrictions on indecent material: prices would drop drastically and profits would follow lessening the very incentive people have to provide indecent material. I can’t escape that basic economic principle that leads me to believe censorship laws have the opposite effect than what is desired.
In response to kids buying alcohol and/or cigarettes: the flaw in the premise of your question is that our current laws actually stop them from getting alcohol and/or cigarettes. The reality is tons of kids under 18 drink and smoke like crazy. The current laws intended to keep alcohol and cigarettes out of the hands of kids simply don’t work. I again have not seen any convincing evidence that said laws actually accomplish what they profess to do and I’m inclined to again believe they have the opposite effect. The real answer to your question of what is to stop them from getting alcohol and/or cigarettes is: the kids themselves choosing not to partake of them and of course parents teaching them righteous principles will surley be the strongest help for them in that fight. No law will stop a kid that wants to smoke from smoking.
In response to the indecent billboard idea: that already happens even with our current censorship laws. I have seen plenty of inappropriate billboards on display for all to see just like there is plenty of inappropriate material on tv, the internet, books, and magazines for all to see as well. Do you honestly think that laws can actually stop all of that? I certainly don’t…
Lastley I just don’t buy the argument that if something is made legal all of a sudden everyone will do it and in fact I think the opposite is more often the case. An example would be prohibition. After prohibition of alcohol was repealed consumption of alcohol actually went down not up. Once alcohol was legal again prices dropped drastically literally crippiling organized crime at the time as there huge profits were made by selling and distributing alcohol. Legalizing alcohol consumption took away organized crime’s cash cow and crime dropped significantly. Organized crime practically died because alcohol consumption was made legal again. I apply those same lessons we should learn from alcohol prohibition to many other things like drugs and pornography.
In responce to: “I honestly have not seen any convincing evidence that censorship laws actually lessen the overall exposure kids or anyone has to indecent material. I’m seriously inclined to think they actually increase it overall. I truly believe that all censorship laws do is drive the price of indecent material up which in turn drives up the profits for anyone providing it. All this does is create extra strong incentives for people to produce and provide indecent material even more.” While I agree that laws drive the price of illegal material up, I don’t think it is in this case for indecent material in our country with the laws we have now. Because the laws we have don’t make that illegal. Most laws we have only somewhat censor it from being in public. It is free all over the internet, and availible in magazines, books, etc. Maybe you don’t understand my real question again and I can be more specific:
Do you think that removing the current laws in place right now that censor indecent material from public view, then do you think kids will more likely be exposed to indecent material more often and/or in worse ways?”
Also in responce to, “The real answer to your question of what is to stop them from getting alcohol and/or cigarettes is: the kids themselves choosing not to partake of them and of course parents teaching them righteous principles will surley be the strongest help for them in that fight. No law will stop a kid that wants to smoke from smoking.” While I agree that the laws are not stopping all kids and agree that the best way to stop this action is for parents to teach them the principles, I would also say that it hinders and/or stops at least a small percentage of kids from that behavior that would try it if presented with that free choice. We are not limiting this freedom to adults. We are limiting freedom to kids or in your words “forcing limitations” like we should in many cases, like voting, obtaining(buying) a gun, driving a car, etc. Would you be for extending these freedoms (or lowering the current ages) to kids as well?
Next, “I have seen plenty of inappropriate billboards on display for all to see just like there is plenty of inappropriate material on tv, the internet, books, and magazines for all to see as well. Do you honestly think that laws can actually stop all of that? I certainly don’t…” I definitely don’t think it stops ALL of that either and there shouldn’t be laws that stop that for adults that want to do those things in private, but I definitely think there should be laws that hinders and stops a lot of that for kids.
I am curious also, we know that smoking affects your life, but it is proven more and more that it is affecting the secondhand person as well. Would you be for a law that limits smoking in areas?
This is incorrect: “Because the laws we have don’t make that illegal. Most laws we have only somewhat censor it from being in public.”
Any government censorship at all even if it’s “only somewhat” is accomplished through laws making the censored material illegal. So my reasoning for prices being driven up is still correct. Again making something illegal, even if it’s “only somewhat” still drives the prices up.
In response to the question that you originally asked and are now asking again: “Do you think that removing the current laws in place right now that censor indecent material from public view, then do you think kids will more likely be exposed to indecent material more often and/or in worse ways?”
I have the exact same answer I had before. I understood the question and I repeat that I have not seen any convincing evidence that censorship laws actually lessen the overall exposure kids or anyone has to indecent material. I also repeat my other point that I’m inclined to think they actually increase it overall for reasons I’ve already stated.
If you want me to be more specific than that then my answer is I have no reason whatsoever to believe that removing the current censorship laws will lead to an increase in kids being exposed to indecent material. I think it could actually reduce it again for reasons I’ve already stated.
My entire point is censorship laws are unproven to be effective at accomplishing what they claim to. If it’s unproven they actually reduce exposure to indecent material then why have them as laws? If a law doesn’t accomplish what it professes to then I say get rid of it.
Let me ask you: do you have any evidence that government censorship of indecent material actually decreases the overall exposure kids have to it?
I also have a problem with this statement of yours: “While I agree that the laws are not stopping all kids … I would also say that it hinders and/or stops at least a small percentage of kids from that behavior that would try it if presented with that free choice.”
I stand by what I said before: “No law will stop a kid that wants to smoke from smoking.” I have not seen any convincing evidence that said laws stops even a small percentage of kids from that behavior. But let’s say it actually does stop some kids. As I pointed out previously if it’s illegal, even “only somewhat”, it drives the prices and profits up again creating extra strong incentives for producers to make it and sell it even more. So what if the law does stop some kids from smoking while creating conditions that lead to other kids to smoke even more? I guess my point is laws prohibiting kids from smoking have not proven to reduce smoking overall at all and again I’m inclined to think they actually lead to an overall increase in smoking by kids.
Let me ask you: do you have any evidence that laws prohibiting kids from smoking actually decreases smoking by kids?
In response to this: “I definitely think there should be laws that hinders and stops a lot of that for kids. (indecent material)”
I again have not seen any evidence, nor do I have any reason to believe, that government censorship actually reduces the overall exposure kids have to indecent material. Sure it may reduce some here or there but I think it’s totally likely that it’s simply increased elsewhere. For example if censorship reduces some indecent material on TV it could increase on the internet. I’m inclined to think government censorship simply shifts and moves indecent material around without actually reducing it overall.
Plus as I said before parents have a responsibility to protect there children from indecent material but laws that attempt to do that for parents just steals the responsibility away from the party that should be responsible, parents, and gives it to another party of strangers: politicians and bureaucrats which frankly should not be trusted with something as important as protecting your child from indecent material. Government is no substitute for parents nor are censorship laws a substitute for what should be taught in the home.
To answer this question: “I am curious also, we know that smoking affects your life, but it is proven more and more that it is affecting the secondhand person as well. Would you be for a law that limits smoking in areas?”
No, I am generally opposed to almost all anti-smoking laws. Secondhand smoke only harms you if you choose to be around the smoke. If a restaurant or business allows smoking and you choose to be around said smoke you are harming yourself. You have a choice to remove yourself from those places and remove yourself from the smoke.
I only have 2 minutes, will respond more later but:
NCAC
“In the Playboy Entertainment case, expert witnesses for both the government and Playboy testified at trial that there is no empirical body of evidence of harm to minors from exposure to pornography.”
But we know with revelation that there is great harm to minors from this exposure. right?
Sometimes you don’t need to prove a case to make it right or do you?
Kevin you sound like a smart guy. What do you think about the surveillance bill that was recently approved?
In response to Jeff:
Yes we know from revelation that there is great harm to anyone (not only minors) from exposure to pornography. I never claimed otherwise.
In response to this: “Sometimes you don’t need to prove a case to make it right or do you?”
I’m frankly confused here… I never disagreed that being exposed to pornography is harmful so I don’t see why you feel the need to prove that nor did I ask you to prove being exposed to pornography is harmful…
I am however asking you to provide any evidence that a law you want in place works and accomplishes what it claims to. If there is no evidence that the law you want works it’s totally possible that very law has the opposite effect of what you want. And if it has the opposite effect of what you want then you yourself should oppose the law.
If you want to initate force upon others (through a law) and forceable tell others what to do then I do put the burden of proof on you to prove your initiation of force is just. In short yes I do think you should have to prove your case if you want to have force, deadly force that is, initiated upon others.
In response to Don:
You weren’t very specific on what bill you are referring to but I’m assuming you are referring to this bill: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031400803.html?hpid=topnews
Correct me if this is the wrong one.
I frankly don’t know a whole lot about this bill but once I read the following paragraph I decided I don’t like it and I don’t approve of this bill:
“The legislation, approved 213 to 197, would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to expand the powers of intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on terrorism and spying suspects and keep pace with ever-changing communications technologies.”
I believe our federal government already has way too much power to spy on us here at home in the name of “fighting terrorism.” I don’t like the idea of that power being expanded whatsoever and think it should instead be constricted.
In order to answer most of our discussions, Lets deep dive a little more into the principle of “rights” vs “laws”.
I think we agree that government has a main role of protection like protect from heinous crime but, Do you feel that government also has a role to set a standard by which we can all agree to live?
For one example, you could say you have “right” to keep all of your own earnings, but you also logically know the government requires money to operate. So do we need a way to “force” people to pay some sort of taxes? If so, is this way to “force” people to pay taxes only part of the main role of protection?
Jeff – In response to “Do you feel that government also has a role to set a standard by which we can all agree to live?”
Sounds kinda vague but I guess I would have to say yes. For example you can’t murder someone is a standard to live by but I think those standards forced upon us by government should be very rare and limited like again murder. I think it’s the degree of those standards that we fundamentally disagree upon.
As far as taxes goes I have done a lot of research and thinking about taxes and frankly I’m torn and still undecided. One side of me says that fundamentally I disagree with any taxation since taxation is literally theft. But the other practical side of me says that some form of taxation is unavoidable if there is to a be government and laws and since I’m not an anarchist I will then therefore have to approve of some taxation. Basically it’s a necessary evil. So yes we need to force people to pay some sort of taxes. Since it’s literally theft though that’s another reason for taxation to be extremely limited which is another reason I’m a libertarian and want government to be much smaller, do much less, and have very few laws. The more government does the more theft will occur via taxation. Again I think it’s the degree of taxation we probably disagree upon.
In response to your last question: “If so, is this way to “force” people to pay taxes only part of the main role of protection?”
I’m gonna have to plea ignorance on this question since I really don’t understand exactly what you are asking. It sounds like you are asking “is forcing paying taxes only part of what government does?” If that is your question then yes, they also pass laws, enforce laws, and resolve disputes.
If I misunderstood the question then maybe you could be more specific but hopefully that’s what you meant.
Yes, I suppose we disagree about the standards by which we can all agree to live. I was really asking if taxes are okay to be forced because it is the only way for government to protect our freedoms?
We have a right to life and liberty. But what happens when these clash as well. You said yourself that you disagree with abortion unlike many Libertarians because you and we know that this is taking away the life and liberty of the child and that trumps the mother’s liberty. So most of our differences could be the way I feel this happens with other things.
I love the idealistic claim from libertarians that government shouldn’t limit freedom. I like being free, and God has set that up for us as well. The right to choose. Moral agency. But God has also setup Commandments. Do these Commandments limit our freedom? Well, there is consequences for each of our choices and what that choice has or does upon us and others. And those consequences take away our freedom and/or others freedom. So Commandments preserve our freedom and moral agency right?
If so, why can’t we just have commandments as our laws?
Government is not perfect like God and laws created by man cannot be perfect like commandments, But we can and need to think in the same manner about what laws to have in place that will keep life and freedom preserved.
I also want government to be small. It needs to be smaller than it is right now, but I will not agree or vote for what some people call more freedom when in reality or in my belief it is actually taking life or freedom away.
In response to this: “Why can’t we just have commandments as our laws?”
Commandments do not restrict choice and agency because they are not forced upon anyone. We all have a choice to voluntary follow them or not. For example no one is forced to attend church. If we choose however to attend church we grow, learn, and will be blessed. If however commandments were forced on us then we would have no reward for following them and we would not grow or learn. Satan’s plan was to force us to do what was right. He did not want us to be able to use our agency to choose the right and therefore he sought to destroy our agency. In fact President Faust has said “Our agency, given us through the plan of our Father, is the great alternative to Satan’s plan of force.”
Laws are force. When a law is passed it is enforced by police, courts, judges etc. Everyone is forced to obey laws. Now sometimes the government doesn’t have enough force to ensure they are all always followed but the idea behind any law is to not allow anyone to break it and they are all backed with force.
I do not believe it is right to force an adult to attend church, do there home teaching, pay there tithing, magnify there callings, pray, have family home evening,have clean thoughts. etc. Nor do I believe it is right to throw someone in jail for failure to do any of those things. Frankly a system of government that requires such things is fascist or at least theocratic which goes against the Constitution entirely.
The Lord testified of the Constitution and President Ezra Taft Benson said, “I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval on the Constitution of this land. I testify that the God of heaven sent some of His choicest spirits to lay the foundation of this government, and He has sent other choice spirits—even you who read my words—to preserve it.” I agree and think the form of government the Constitution calls for is just and proper. The Constitution does not allow the government to impose laws on it’s citizens because it’s a commandment of God.
I also agree with Doctrine & Covenants section 134:4,6,7,9,10 that completely disagree with the idea of commandments = laws. Here are some relevant pieces from those verses:
“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it…we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish bguilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.”
“human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship”
“We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege”
“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government”
“we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.”
I would actually recommend you read the entire section as it’s very detailed in what the brethren felt about government. It is very clear from these verses that it is not proper to just have commandments as our laws and it is very clear that there is a distinct seperation between human laws and divine laws.
Oh and I completely agree with this that you said: “I will not agree or vote for what some people call more freedom when in reality or in my belief it is actually taking life or freedom away.”
Me too. I also will not vote for what some people call more freedom if it’s actually taking away life or freedom. I want the maximum freedom for everyone and that is exactly why I’m a libertarian.
I have been reading up on the Libertarian stances more to get an idea about them more.
Some I disagree with and some I agree with, but in the Social Security section it says, “The federal government owns assets worth trillions of dollars – assets that it simply doesn’t need to perform its Constitutional functions. By selling those assets over time, we can keep the promises . . . ”
Taken from: http://www.lp.org/issues/social-security
Out of curiosity, What are some examples of these trillions of dollars of assets refered to here?
The first two major assets that popped into my head are land and buildings but I’m sure there are others as well. The United States federal government owns more than 653 million acres of land. This is almost 29 percent of all the land in the United States. The federal government owns land in all fifty states, with ownership exceeding 50 percent in some states.
In addition to all this land, the federal government owns 411,415 buildings with a total of almost 3 billion sq. ft. of building area all acquired at a cost of about $327 billion. The federal government also has 59,036 leases on 45,261 buildings with an annual rental cost to the taxpayers of just over $6 billion.
The U.S. government owns approximately 1.5 million acres of land outside the United States. There are 4,437 buildings sitting on this land that occupy over 35 million sq. ft. of building area. The U.S. government also has 12,738 leases on 12,446 buildings on foreign soil with an annual rental cost to U.S. taxpayers of over $523 million. The United States leases property in 167 foreign countries.
Frankly most of that land and buildings fall under the umbrella of assets “it simply doesn’t need to perform its Constitutional functions.” Now I’m not calling for, nor is the Libertarian party calling for, the sale of all of federal land and buildings because the federal government does need some to perform there proper duties but I think it only needs a tiny fraction of what it has now.
All of that land and buildings is worth many trillions of dollars most of which should go back into the hands of private individuals and back into the economy and out of the hands of the federal government.
If you can I would like a more detail in what these lands and buildings are doing if anything and what they do and what these leases are and what they do if you can expound a little more.
We have gone over Federal government in many questions, but what if any extra or less responsibilities are your views or libertarian views to be of State government?
I can’t even begin to explain in detail what these lands and buildings are doing simply because there are way too many to try to break down and explain. The only thing I can say to that is those lands and buildings directly correlate to what our federal government currently does. So really the only way to answer your question is to explain every single thing the federal government does. I frankly don’t know it all nor would we have enough time to discuss that.
To get a better understanding though of what these lands and buildings are used for I would look at the federal government budget. This should give a decent overview of where our tax dollars are allocated which should correspond to what the land and buildings are being used for.
There’s lot of info out there on the internet of where the federal government spends it’s money and here’s one to check out:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Fy2007spendingbycategory.png
Again these percentages probably correspond pretty well with what the lands and buildings are generally used for.
what if any extra or less responsibilities are your views or libertarian views to be of State government? Or what things need to be left up to the state government?
Kids/minors probably can get almost any illegal item and/or do almost any illegal thing if they really wanted no matter what research has said one way or another.
But my question still is:
In today’s laws we are limiting the choice or “limiting freedom” to kids/minors or in your words, “forcing limitations” like voting, buying a gun, driving a car, etc to kids/minors. Would you be for getting rid of these laws or in other words extending these freedoms to all people (or lowering the current ages) to kids/minors as well?
Jeff, in response to your State government questions:
I believe that the more local a government the more responsive it is to the will of the people. So the federal government is the least responsive, the state is more responsive, and the county/city is the most responsive. Therefore I prefer, in general, that the federal government does the least while the local governments do the most, states would fall in between the two. So I think the states should do more than the federal government, which is the opposite of what is going on right now.
With that being sad my libertarian views pretty much extend to all levels of government. So for example: education. It would be better if the federal government were not involved with education and left it up to the states instead but it would be even better if even the states were not involved with education and no government were involved with it.
That may be a vague answer but that’s the best way I can think of answering it. Let me know if that’s not specific enough.
In response to your questions about minors:
When it comes to kids the questions of government are very different. This is mainly because young children do not have the mental capacity to understand the nature of there decisions thus they are not truly exercising agency in the first place.
I frankly have not fully developed my theories of government in relation to children so all I will provide is my initial thoughts that poped into my head in relation to the 3 specific subjects you brought up. I just want to stress that I am frankly unsure exactly where I stand on all of these issues so I am very open to being corrected or shown I am wrong on any or all of these.
1. Voting: I don’t even think all adults should be able to vote. I prefer to tie the priviledge of voting with land ownership. That may sound wild and crazy to someone who has never heard of that idea but that is honestly what I prefer. If you own land in this country you are a part owner of this country and only the owners of this country should have a vote in our government. You, as the owner of your house, are the sole decider of what is allowed in your house. You’re kids can’t out vote you and tell you what to do with your house, they don’t own it you do. So to the owners of this country should be the sole deciders of what is allowed in our country.
So if a child owns land then yes they should be able to vote.
2. Buying a gun: My emotional response would be to continue to ban gun ownership by minors. There is a logical side of me though that makes me wonder if a ban of kids buying guns actually reduces said activity. I haven’t seen any evidence either way but if a ban on such a thing leads to a consequence opposite of what the law intends and it actually increases gun ownership by kids then I would oppose the law. I don’t want kids to own guns but I am unsure which method would better accompish that: a law or no law. Therefore I guess I would have to default to freedom and legally allow kids to buy guns unless it can be shown that a law banning gun ownership by kids actually reduces said ownership.
I always default to freedom and liberty even with kids.
One other thing I thought of though is there would be market pressures for gun sellers to not sell to kids. If you, as an adult, wanted to buy gun would you buy from, and therefore support, a gun seller that is known to sell guns to kids? Or would you buy from a seller that only sells to adults? Personally I would buy from the later and I think most parents would do the same. Therefore there would be strong market pressures for companies to restrict selling guns to children anyway. This market pressue might even be a greater force than a forceful law preventing it.
3. Driving a car: In my libertarian world the government would not own, build, or maintain all of our roads. I believe roads should be privately owned and they would be cheaper to build and maintain. We would have more options in our roads and they would be better quality with less traffic. Since I believe roads should be privately owned I would defer the question of children driving to the owner of the property: the road owner. The owner of the road should be able to make the decision on if kids can drive on his roads or not. It’s his road and no one elses so he is the only one that has just authority to make that call. Just like you are the only one that can decide what is allowed in your own home the road owner has the same right to his property.
With that being sad I think most road owners would not allow kids to drive on there roads. The reason for this is we all know that kids are more dangerous behind the wheel and they are responsible for a large portion of accidents and deaths. If the road owner allows them to drive on his road then his road will have more accidents and deaths than his competitors that ban children from driving. The road owner will lose customers and profits if his road is more dangerous than other roads. So because the road owner wants to maximize his profits the market will push him to ban young children from driving on his road. The road owner has the strongest incentives to prevent young children from driving on his road, a stronger incentive than simply following the law.
I just wanted to add this quote by Nobel laureate(in economics) Milton Friedman:
“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions
rather than their results…”
Intentions don’t matter if the results are the opposite. That’s why I keep on going back to what are the actual results of laws.
So what do you project the next four years will hold with President-Elect B. Obama as president. What are the things he has in store for the people of this nation that you’re unsure or or down-right unhappy about? Or, what do you like that Obama may be supporting or pushing for in his presidency?
I project many harmful and damaging social policies that will continue to erode away at our freedoms and liberties.
For example: Health care. Universal health care will do so much damage to this country that I am literally scarred of.
I foresee government spending will continue to spiral out of control while his tax increases will stifle productivity, destroy jobs, increase unemployment and lead to ever increasing inflation.
I also see the the law of the land, The Constitution, being violated and forgotten more and more.
I honestly can’t think of anything he will do that I support.
How about you?
Admittedly, I have my worries about him, like every other “normal” person ought. I certainly wasn’t a supporter just because of his health care ideas alone.
And in all the TV spots I’ve seen him on he has never placed his hand over his heart for the Pledge or even said the Pledge of Allegiance itself. He would just stand there and that above all things scares me the most about him. Did you ever notice that? I’m amazed at how many people – especially supporters of his – who did not realize that he didn’t involve himself in one of the oldest rites of our Nation. The old addage, “Actions speak louder than words,” is what I think of in regards to Obama. He spins pretty words to woo the people, but he has no love this country, and therefore, no right to the seat of presidency.
But I hold on to the hope that somehow the Lord will be mindful and that we can survive the coming four years without too much damage to the original constitutional rights and to the people of this nation in general.
Do you feel it was right or wrong for Obama to fire the CEO of the GM car company?
Wrong. It’s an abuse of government power.