Jump to content


So what would happen if we elected a Libertarian Pres?


Dodge
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's easy for a third party, from the outside looking in, to criticize what the GOP and the Dems are doing. I've become especially annoyed recently with that snide attitude that third parties, mostly libertarians, have exhibited. I'm not so sure they'd do that great of a job themselves. We live in a complicated world and I just can't see how reverting to a government that essentially only provides a standing army is a good thing.

 

I'm posting this as an opportunity for fans of libertarians to make the case for them - hypothetical situation - if a libertarian candidate were to win, and had their way with everything, what would our country be like? Would there be police, or standardized education, etc? Enlighten us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I've become especially annoyed recently with that snide attitude that third parties, mostly libertarians, have exhibited.

What are you talking about? Everyone knows that if we had a libertarian as president, the streets would be paved with gold, and choirs of angels would sing for us. :rolleyes:

 

In all seriousness, I agree with your comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy for a third party, from the outside looking in, to criticize what the GOP and the Dems are doing. I've become especially annoyed recently with that snide attitude that third parties, mostly libertarians, have exhibited. I'm not so sure they'd do that great of a job themselves. We live in a complicated world and I just can't see how reverting to a government that essentially only provides a standing army is a good thing.

 

I'm posting this as an opportunity for fans of libertarians to make the case for them - hypothetical situation - if a libertarian candidate were to win, and had their way with everything, what would our country be like? Would there be police, or standardized education, etc? Enlighten us.

Well, for one thing, with a Libertarian President you would probably have a balanced budget because they would cut our bloated military budget and veto any unbalanced budget Congress passes. Unless the 2 parties were gonna blatantly team up to screw the American people by continuing our insane deficit spending, we could stop borrowing money from countries like China and we could stop contributing to inflation by "borrowing" from the Federal Reserve (who in actuality is just printing the money out of thin air and creating inflation). Who knows, maybe we could even destroy the Federal Reserve and restore the power to regulate monetary policy to the elected and more accountable members of Congress, to whom that power is given by our Constitution.

 

I don't imagine that anyone would get rid of medicare or social security overnight or anything close to it. I think everyone understands that too many people have been made dependent on the system through overtaxation, and its not their fault. And honestly, given our crazy tax burden, I believe that we could fund those obligations if we had a president who refused to just throw away money we didn't have on nonsense that is not just Unconstitutional, but also counter-productive. You could bring back probably over 30 Billion just by cutting all foreign aid. How much do you think we could save if we stopped building and maintaining military bases around the world like the 14 we are building in Iraq along with the Embassy bigger than the Vatican? (Which BTW, niether Obama or McCain have any plans on removing any of that stuff we are building in Iraq) We're talking more than 700 bases in over 130 countries. I honestly believe that if you cut out this sort of senseless and Unconstitutional spending, you could easily meet the obligations we have to our own citizens (even those based on Unconstitutional programs) while still lowering the tax burden enough to help protect younger folks from becoming dependent on these programs.

 

As to your point about police and education, you have to understand that the Federal Government, under the Constitution, doesn't have the (legitimate) power to provide any of those things, and clearly they are also inept with them. We can dump the fruitless NCLB and we could try to end the pointless war on drugs, another black hole where your tax dollars go as we also stop trying to supercede state laws in areas where the Federal government should have no say.

 

I think that the end result of all this would be a country where most of the control rests in the hands of state and local leaders, who are more accessible and accountable to their constituents than are Federal Officials, where the Federal Government is providing us with sound money which has a stable value, and where we are not seen throughout the world as an imperialist antagonist. The country would still have a few Unconstitutional programs running to support those who've been victimized and made dependent on the system, but we would be working towards phasing those out as the populace assumes responsibility for themselves and is weened off their dependency.

 

But again, I guess to just be as realistic as possible, just having a Libertarian President with Democrat and Republican Congress couldn't fix everything in the country. He couldn't stop every Unconstitutional program and restrain the Federal Government sufficiently, but he could realistically veto every unbalanced budget Congress passes while also saving us massive amounts of money and improving our international relations through a better and more restrained management of our military.

 

I'm not sure that I've appropriately answered your question, but I'm trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy for a third party, from the outside looking in, to criticize what the GOP and the Dems are doing. I've become especially annoyed recently with that snide attitude that third parties, mostly libertarians, have exhibited. I'm not so sure they'd do that great of a job themselves. We live in a complicated world and I just can't see how reverting to a government that essentially only provides a standing army is a good thing.

 

I'm posting this as an opportunity for fans of libertarians to make the case for them - hypothetical situation - if a libertarian candidate were to win, and had their way with everything, what would our country be like? Would there be police, or standardized education, etc? Enlighten us.

 

Good thread. Part of this intertwines with federalism. I think a lot of libertarians believe a lot of federal programs should be left to the state. What about cross-state police agencies like the FBI or DEA who deal with complex criminal matters that cross state lines like drugs and cyber-crime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy for a third party, from the outside looking in, to criticize what the GOP and the Dems are doing. I've become especially annoyed recently with that snide attitude that third parties, mostly libertarians, have exhibited. I'm not so sure they'd do that great of a job themselves. We live in a complicated world and I just can't see how reverting to a government that essentially only provides a standing army is a good thing.

 

I'm posting this as an opportunity for fans of libertarians to make the case for them - hypothetical situation - if a libertarian candidate were to win, and had their way with everything, what would our country be like? Would there be police, or standardized education, etc? Enlighten us.

 

Good thread. Part of this intertwines with federalism. I think a lot of libertarians believe a lot of federal programs should be left to the state. What about cross-state police agencies like the FBI or DEA who deal with complex criminal matters that cross state lines like drugs and cyber-crime?

I think Federal anti-drug laws are Unconstitutional and should not exist. And while I'm not going to explicitly advocate blowing up the FBI, I will say that I reject the notion that local and state police are incapable of coordinating efforts to find criminals, especially in this age of technology, without the assistance and oversight of the big-brother FBI. The FBI and such aren't the biggest problems we have, but I reject the notion that they are absolutely necessary. And I'm not even getting into the problems of a police force that is basically anti-local and unaccountable, which can supercede the local police at will.

 

While I don't have any direct insight into the effects of federal interference in law enforcement, I think if it's anything like what we've seen with government interference in other sectors, chances are good that they are doing more to overcomplicate and hold back progress than really facilitating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My response to this is a simple one. The Dems and Repubs have ruled this country with an iron fist for most of its existence.

 

Before bashing libertarians, why don;t we let them have a crack at it before everyone starts to dismiss libertarian ideology. That's the political equivalent of deciding a ball game on paper before the teams hit the field. So instead of 'it won't work' how about let's see if it works because the other two parties have done a hell of a job screwing up this country for the past 150+ years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a select amount of replies have missed one of my points in the original post - I asked for the sake of argument what would happen under a libertarian president who (NOTE: THIS IS THE HYPOTHETICAL PART) has absolute power.

 

 

Not trying to be a devils advocate but it is hard to imagine a libertarian president merely based on the fact that this country has never had one. If elected without many libertarians in congress would leave that president almost powerless since both republicans and democrats would still control all the taxpayer money in congress. How a president would lead has as much to do with the person him or herself as it does with the party they represent. This would be easier maybe if they libertarians had a certain person in mind that they would like to see as president and "given congressional support" what they would hypothetically do with the country might give a better response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I have read most of the Fed papers and my studies entail my reading of writings of the founding fathers. My question is not a hard one, I was hoping you and perhaps a handful of others could enlighten me by applying the ideals to which the party holds dear in a contemporary way. I'm presenting an opportunity for you to debunk things that might be misconceptions - why would it not be anarchy, for example. Would education be better or worse if it was not a federal entity? Would the department of defense be eliminated, and if so, would pensions (the majority of the DOD budget) be forgone? It's an open ended question and I don't really want to be debating about the improbability of a libertarian society or the syntax of my opening statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem I have is your stance on the war on drugs. I don't want this country to end up like Latin America, with drug lords running rampant, killing people, etc. The war on drugs is a deterrent for them to avoid being in the USA, IMO.

 

If we were to implement a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, IMO it wouldn't be long until the states have ratified dozens of amendments to re-establish the "Departments" as a federal entity. (I know the last sentence contradicts what I was asking for earlier about a hypothetical situation)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Violence surrounds the drug trade because drugs are illegal. I'm not sure what you are referring to. The illegality of substances means more profits, which means more incentives, which means more strife and violence. The War on Drugs (like every other "war") is counter-productive. Much of the 'dirty' money trickles to terrorist organizations.

 

I also don't find the logic in the second part of your post. A libertarian interpretation of the Constitution would prevent the expansion of the federal government. Please clarify.

 

You're right about why there is violence in the drug world - but are you suggesting we legalize all drugs? I mean, sheesh, but I guess it would weed the addiction gene (if there is one) out of humanity --- no pun intended with the weed.

 

As far as the Constitution - are there not means by which the states ratify new amendments? I don't have my pocket constitution on me as I am not at home, but can 2/3 of states not add an amendment through state conventions of delegates chosen by the people?

 

Or are you referring to the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of such an amendment, establishing, for example a reborn Department of Education?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem I have is your stance on the war on drugs. I don't want this country to end up like Latin America, with drug lords running rampant, killing people, etc. The war on drugs is a deterrent for them to avoid being in the USA, IMO.

 

If we were to implement a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, IMO it wouldn't be long until the states have ratified dozens of amendments to re-establish the "Departments" as a federal entity. (I know the last sentence contradicts what I was asking for earlier about a hypothetical situation)

I will echo Penguino here and remind you of our own history, which disproves your hypothesis that legalized drugs would create such a climate of outlaws and drug lord running rampant in the US. First, you can look at what things were like when Coca-cola still had cocaine in it and all such recreational drugs were perfectly legal, and see that we weren't dominated by the drug cartels then. Now you could say that the drugs of today didn't exist then, and that it would be a different ball game today, and that's a fair point. But I'll point you to the example of the opposite: Prohibition. Now personally it wouldn't matter to me, I don't drink anyway. But look at the effect that prohibition had - it created what was probably the golden age of organized crime in the US, where gangsters (not musicians pretending to be gangsters) were untouchable celebrities who got away with murdering so many people, some fellow criminals, but many also innocent. The biggest effect that government has when it tries to prohibit a substance is that it gives organized crime a new business to manage, make money off of, and kill over. And if you're a rational and reasonable person, you know that it's unrealistic to believe that you can ever eliminate drugs completely so long as people want to use them. I think there's something to be said about not fighting "wars" we cannot win.

 

As to your second point, I don't believe that. It's not like state leaders really want federal officials superceding their authority in state matters. And if were actually to come to a vote among the people of the states, at least the people would have some idea of what they're getting into, and I honestly don't believe most of the Unconstitutional powers of the Federal Government would be legitimized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then we'd have some serious sobriety problems on our nation's roads. Luckily, the roads would deteriorate within a generation under such an administration, so the problem wouldn't last long. If we become as isolationist as the libertarians have suggested, however, perhaps we would see fewer amounts of drugs in the country... that's a long shot, but just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then we'd have some serious sobriety problems on our nation's roads. Luckily, the roads would deteriorate within a generation under such an administration, so the problem wouldn't last long. If we become as isolationist as the libertarians have suggested, however, perhaps we would see fewer amounts of drugs in the country... that's a long shot, but just a thought.

If you have a problem with DUIs then increase the penalties for that, upgradeit to the death penalty in your state. But if we accept the proposition that someone can drink without drinking and driving, why can't they smoke pot without puffing and driving? Why can't they shoot up heroin at home and just stay home?

 

PS: Non-interventionism is not Isolationsim. A libertarian would more often argue for open borders and true free trade. If taking away our 700 foreign military bases would make us isolationists then I ask you: all the rest of the countries in the world that have no military bases in other countries - are they all isolationists? Would you like to see them all stop being isolationists and start building military bases in foreign countires all over the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, legalize all drugs. The idea that somehow this would destroy society and that everyone would start doing drugs is moronic. Alcohol and tobacco are legal, and I use niether. If weed, cocaine, and heroine were legal tomorrow, I wouldn't use them either. And I imagine that would be the case with most people.

 

It would make society trashy. It would ruin all order that is in line. YES people would be more willing to try LEGAL marijuana versus an illegal drug. Thats completely ignorant to think that their usage rate would not go up. Completely. And not only that, their usage rate per person would too go up, because there would be no fear of getting caught. Further more, addictive drugs like cocaine and heroine would become cheaper, and people would become massively addicted. Death rates would go up off those drugs alone, along with crime and murder rates (yes, a high man is much more likely to do something stupid like pull a gun to somebody, and pull the trigger) as well as accident rates in cars. If over 50% of fatalities in cars include alcohol (yes, that is a true statistic) and certain drugs have many similar affects (i.e. loss of judgment or motor skills) then who is to say that wouldn't raise the amount to 75% included drugs? (alcohol is a depressant, it is the same thing as a drug)

 

That is completely ignorant to believe that more people wouldn't do it, simply because YOU wouldn't.

 

Do you understand how addictive cigarettes are? Did you miss the "tobacco free florida" adds all season? Do you know how addictive alcohol is? Do you know what alcoholism is? What an alcoholic is? Sure, there will be people who wont do it anyways, but now you have more people getting away with it because it is legal, and then people who want to try it. If cigarettes were illegal... I GUARANTEE YOU less than 75% of the people who currently smoke would be smoking now. Now mix that in with marijuana, Im sure the rates would easily multiply over 10 times the amount of current marijuana smokers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, legalize all drugs. The idea that somehow this would destroy society and that everyone would start doing drugs is moronic. Alcohol and tobacco are legal, and I use niether. If weed, cocaine, and heroine were legal tomorrow, I wouldn't use them either. And I imagine that would be the case with most people.

 

It would make society trashy. It would ruin all order that is in line. YES people would be more willing to try LEGAL marijuana versus an illegal drug. Thats completely ignorant to think that their usage rate would not go up. Completely. And not only that, their usage rate per person would too go up, because there would be no fear of getting caught. Further more, addictive drugs like cocaine and heroine would become cheaper, and people would become massively addicted. Death rates would go up off those drugs alone, along with crime and murder rates (yes, a high man is much more likely to do something stupid like pull a gun to somebody, and pull the trigger) as well as accident rates in cars. If over 50% of fatalities in cars include alcohol (yes, that is a true statistic) and certain drugs have many similar affects (i.e. loss of judgment or motor skills) then who is to say that wouldn't raise the amount to 75% included drugs? (alcohol is a depressant, it is the same thing as a drug)

 

That is completely ignorant to believe that more people wouldn't do it, simply because YOU wouldn't.

 

Do you understand how addictive cigarettes are? Did you miss the "tobacco free florida" adds all season? Do you know how addictive alcohol is? Do you know what alcoholism is? What an alcoholic is? Sure, there will be people who wont do it anyways, but now you have more people getting away with it because it is legal, and then people who want to try it. If cigarettes were illegal... I GUARANTEE YOU less than 75% of the people who currently smoke would be smoking now. Now mix that in with marijuana, Im sure the rates would easily multiply over 10 times the amount of current marijuana smokers.

 

If I knew somebody who was going to down the wrong path with drugs, I would do everything in my power to stop them. I have tried before, had friends who have lost their lives thanks to drugs, and they are a horrible thing. I just don't think though that the government has any right to tell me or any other individual what they can or cannot do to their body as long as it doesn't cause harm to others. That is not what government is for. You have to have freedom to do whatever you want to your body to have true freedom.

 

The government needs to stay out of restricting the people in order to say we are a free society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you personally know someone who died, yet you still support freedom of choice to let them kill themselves? Sure they will get away with it, but by the government legalizing that crap do you understand the availability of it? People could now be able to purchase it freely. MORE people would have that option to let drugs ruin their lives. You would not need connections. You would not need to question the law when doing it. YES that is what the government is for. YOU may have the last say in it, but the government is one of the biggest influences of all. Why do you think smoking commercials are banned? The government. Why do you think the government funds so many programs like Tobacco Free Florida? To demote it. Less people smoke cigarettes because of the government. If the government had made smoking tobacco illegal in the first place (yeah I know that stems all the way back to when man made it to this continent, so thats not plausible) then you would have a massively less amount of people smoking cigarettes. The government saves lives, and even though the final judgment comes from the person, influence is one of the most important prospects. I dont understand how you have seen someone die to drugs and you STILL would be for it? That makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you personally know someone who died, yet you still support freedom of choice to let them kill themselves?

 

Yes I have and yes I do.

 

Sure they will get away with it, but by the government legalizing that crap do you understand the availability of it? People could now be able to purchase it freely. MORE people would have that option to let drugs ruin their lives.

 

I also know people who have died from lung cancer.

 

YES that is what the government is for. YOU may have the last say in it, but the government is one of the biggest influences of all.

 

The purpose of government is to protect our people from others, protect our freedoms and serve the people. The sad part is your second statement; the government has tried to become one of the biggest influences. It shouldn't be that way, we should be influenced by friends, family and the community. The government shouldn't make decisions for people.

 

I dont understand how you have seen someone die to drugs and you STILL would be for it? That makes no sense.

 

Because I don't want the government to make decisions for individuals? I still actually trust individuals themselves, crazy concept, I know.

 

BTW I apologize for going Off topic in this thread, Dodge originally asked what we think the country would look like if a Libertarian were in power, and I do not think that all drugs would become legal even if we had full power because I don't think the people want all drugs to be legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...