Possible Democratic and Libertarian Teamwork to End Drug War?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

The government doesn't nickel and dime you for any little thing. If it were possible a corporation owning a road would charge you to change lanes.

No, they club you nearly to death for damn near all of it.

A hero for our time: Inspired by the man who built his own toll road? He's one of countless Britons rising up to solve problems the State's too useless to fix

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

So government shouldn't be spending money to improve infrastructure?

It isn't a binary proposition. There has to be a federal government and some very large infrastructure projects are needed. The problem is that government has become bloated with their hands and every freaking thing. We don't need a Department of Housing. the EPA is out of control. So is the FDA. We don't need public television. We don't need a Department of Education. All these various departments and their thousands of employees pumping out regulations with no oversight are a drag on the productive economy.

The point is that government produces nothing. Every dime the government spends has to come from you and I. The more they take from us, the less we have to spend and invest. Government is highly inefficient at allocating capital. You give the government $1,000 to feed the homeless, $900 of it goes to overhead and maybe $100 to feeding the homeless. Meanwhile, I could have just gave $1,000 to a bum on the corner if the government didn't take it from me.

a reply to: greencmp

It's more of a 6 in one hand, half dozen in the other. We could sit here and go back and forth all day venerating and lamenting business or government process, but we both know that they both have their problems and issues. The fact of the matter is that infrastructure is a public thing therefore the public needs to pay for it. Privatization would be bad for roads.

a reply to: Edumakated

I know all this. Ultimately I want to trim government expenses as well. Thats what this thread was supposed to be about remember? Discussing ways that Democrats and Libertarians can come together in ideology to reduce expenses?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

The fact of the matter is that infrastructure is a public thing therefore the public needs to pay for it. Privatization would be bad for roads.

This thread has devolved. Not only do people not agree with your assessment on infrastructure, they want to eliminate the EPA,FDA, and Dept of education.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

It's more of a 6 in one hand, half dozen in the other. We could sit here and go back and forth all day venerating and lamenting business or government process, but we both know that they both have their problems and issues. The fact of the matter is that infrastructure is a public thing therefore the public needs to pay for it. Privatization would be bad for roads.

I completely disagree.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

I know all this. Ultimately I want to trim government expenses as well. Thats what this thread was supposed to be about remember? Discussing ways that Democrats and Libertarians can come together in ideology to reduce expenses?

Thank you

This has been a lesson in the degrees of libertarianism.

If u follow the logic: private owners would build roads and we could jus pay tolls,
if a company makes an unsafe product then people won't buy it,
some people jus wont be able to start first grade
Some people jus wont get medical care
I had a professor in college defend price gouging

Like the atheist libertarian... No faith in God but full faith in the "invisible hand" of the market

a reply to: HighFive

Greencmp makes good points though. His philosophy isn't wrong. There just needs to be a compromise point. The reason Libertarianism has never been implemented is because it is too idealistic. Even Thomas Jefferson (arguably one of the forefathers of Libertarian thought) was considered a huge idealist by his peers. Some things just don't work like they are imagined in practice, many times they can't. But that doesn't mean you can't make concessions and apply Libertarian thought and ideals to different compromises without saying the "No government intervention" mantra.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: HighFive

Greencmp makes good points though. His philosophy isn't wrong. There just needs to be a compromise point. The reason Libertarianism has never been implemented is because it is too idealistic. Even Thomas Jefferson (arguably one of the forefathers of Libertarian thought) was considered a huge idealist by his peers. Some things just don't work like they are imagined in practice, many times they can't. But that doesn't mean you can't make concessions and apply Libertarian thought and ideals to different compromises without saying the "No government intervention" mantra.

That is a fair assessment and if I were an officeholder, I suspect my parameters might be slightly constrained.

But, since I am not an officeholder, there is no motivation to demand less than what I believe could work knowing that that is where the negotiations would start from.

a reply to: greencmp

What I mean is for things like Gay Marriage. There is no way that anyone is going to get government uninvolved with marriage. It just isn't a feasible suggestion to make. Marriage is just too intertwined in bureaucracy for this to happen. A good portion of the system relies on it. Therefore, knowing this one must make a Libertarian decision with that. Your hand is already preforced on a compromise since you know that your true goal of decoupling marriage from the government is a pipedream. Therefore logic dictates that all people should benefit equally from this thing that government provides. It isn't the entire Libertarian ideal, it is just selective because your hands are tied.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

What I mean is for things like Gay Marriage. There is no way that anyone is going to get government uninvolved with marriage. It just isn't a feasible suggestion to make. Marriage is just too intertwined in bureaucracy for this to happen. A good portion of the system relies on it. Therefore, knowing this one must make a Libertarian decision with that. Your hand is already preforced on a compromise since you know that your true goal of decoupling marriage from the government is a pipedream. Therefore logic dictates that all people should benefit equally from this thing that government provides. It isn't the entire Libertarian ideal, it is just selective because your hands are tied.

I would agree with that and, frankly, if it weren't for the DOJ's interests in preventing spousal privilege from being expanded, it would have already been done. I think the best that can be hoped for is a national civil union as a result.

a reply to: greencmp

My biggest problem with the Civil Union argument is that it sounds suspiciously like the "separate but equal" argument in favor of segregation and we all know how that turned out.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

My biggest problem with the Civil Union argument is that it sounds suspiciously like the "separate but equal" argument in favor of segregation and we all know how that turned out.

That pretty much leaves taking away spousal privilege and any other benefits from marriage. A tough sell.

I suppose you could grandfather all existing prosecutions.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: HighFive

Greencmp makes good points though. His philosophy isn't wrong. There just needs to be a compromise point. The reason Libertarianism has never been implemented is because it is too idealistic. Even Thomas Jefferson (arguably one of the forefathers of Libertarian thought) was considered a huge idealist by his peers. Some things just don't work like they are imagined in practice, many times they can't. But that doesn't mean you can't make concessions and apply Libertarian thought and ideals to different compromises without saying the "No government intervention" mantra.

No disrespect to anyone, all have made strong points

I started this to see what was actually possible to pass congress, good discussion on drug war, flat tax, infrastructure.

So I was saying eliminating dept of education or EPA was a little off topic cuz that's an extreme minority opinion.

Air and water are public things too and by your logic should be paid for or regulated by the public.
Everyones ideology crumbles a little when it's YOUR tap water catches fire...
Sometimes my right to clean water butts heads with a CEO's right to make the most profit he can.

a reply to: greencmp

While I agree on your generell premise here, don't you think a nations infrastructure is also a crucial element to uphold the law of the land, aswell as national security - which are both legitimate functions (even in a minarchist state) in order to ensure the protection of individuals inside and to the outside?

originally posted by: ColCurious
a reply to: greencmp

While I agree on your generell premise here, don't you think a nations infrastructure is also a crucial element to uphold the law of the land, aswell as national security - which are both legitimate functions (even in a minarchist state) in order to ensure the protection of individuals inside and to the outside?

Of course, I am willing to negotiate for necessary military infrastructure such as the interstate highways, etc but, that all falls within the defense budget at the federal level.

Everything else is better handled by free market investment, privately owned and operated. States and towns can decide to build with public money if they want though.

My strategy is to demand it all so as to have room to make concessions as needed.

a reply to: greencmp

My strategy is to demand it all so as to have room to make concessions as needed.

Thank you for the passionate posts.
You get the award for most ideologically pure.
So I have a question for you that requires no concessions....

Would you support passing a flat tax, decriminalizing marijuana, say... Repealing the patriot act,
All things some libertarian or tea party members would support, But they would pass with more Democratic votes? Could you handle getting some things, but not others?

For instance, When it comes to marijuana the 50 libertarian leaning congressman make a large majority.
Whereas, on an issue like private roadways those 50 or less would stand alone.

a reply to: HighFive

No on the flat tax but, yes on the rest.

With the exception of interstate highways, roads are state and local issues and as such are moot points.

Almost all issues are local and therefore are up to local government to interfere with or not as reflected by local referendum.

There are very few things that should be overseen by the federal government unless they rise to the level of being unconstitutional and remain unresolved in lower courts.

The federal government should never attempt to manage the lives of Americans.