Ich
10-16-2004, 12:18 AM
The blueprints of a better world.
Who knows what is best for you? Bush or Kerry? Can you say with certainty that someone you've likely never met before is capable of making decisions that have a large effect on your life, let alone that he or she is better at making those decisions than you are? If you can't, then you should consider the Libertarian Party. One of the key concepts of the libertarian philosophy is self-ownership, and you are in the position to say what is best for you. The other key belief is that you have a right to protection against coercion and fraud. These are the only necessary regulations in a free market, so that all transactions are completely voluntary and benefit both parties. From these simple core ideas, you can build a working government, stressing personal freedom and responsibility. There you are, the blueprints of a better world.
With simple rules such as these, you can let people live happy lives. The key factor is that they live a life as they choose. You own your body and the work you do. Nobody in the world has more of a right to dictate what you do than yourself. As a personal philosophy, libertarianism is very good. You do not infringe on the rights of others to live their lives as they see fit, and this will work. However, freedom without responsibility is entirely unfeasible. If you do choose to steal, kill, or assault another freedom-loving libertarian, the consequences will be your restitution of their loss, and your punishment. Police forces would be greatly aided by this transition to libertarianism, and we could keep more violent criminals off the streets. What will be the source of this great improvement in service? The police will have roughly twice their current resources when they no longer need to hunt down so called "criminals" whose only "crime" has no victim at all. The police will be able to pursue important things, such as murders and assaults, without their hands tied by the sheer volume of drug cases. On average, drug offenders can expect to spend more time in prison than rapists, even if they harmed nobody in the process. The rapists receive early release, because the prison is so crowded by drug offenders. Is this what America stands for?
By ending federal drug prohibition, we can kill several birds with one stone. Our prisons will no longer be overcrowded, and our streets will be safer because rapists and murderers can stay incarcerated. People will no longer need to steal to support their habits, instead being able to afford their drug of choice with honest work. Basic economics dictates that when the supply is strongly limited with a steadily growing demand, prices will increase to incredible heights. Legalization of drugs will increase the supply so that it can meet market demands, and lower prices will result. With prices removed from the current astronomical heights, drugs will no longer function as an effective source of income for terrorist organizations and gangs.
In the history of the US and the world, whatever the government can do, can be better accomplished by private institutions, often with better results and at lower cost. Throwing 5 trillion dollars at the problem of poverty since Johnson began his "Great Society" reforms has not eradicated poverty, nor raised the standard of living for everyone in the United States, nor ended the problem of homelessness. Privatizing government aid and handouts, not increasing them, is the path to better aid and service. While poverty cannot be eliminated, a dollar for dollar tax credit for those contributing to social-welfare-type charities will better help serve the needy. Rather than confiscation of Social Security to give to the elderly now, allowing people to take it and invest it themselves will allow for people to better afford retirement.
In a market unregulated by the government, things would stabilize and become more competitive; additional regulation drives up costs of everything and puts large corporations at an advantage over smaller businesses. When the government says you don't have a right to charge people what they're willing to pay, that prevents you from making as much money as capitalism dictates you should be able to from your investment. Take for example the current problem with flu shots. The prices of flu shots in Florida skyrocketed up to $900 per vial after the supply was cut in half, and the Attorney General of Kansas, Phil Kline, filed a suit against a company for not charging "fair market value." AG Kline seemed to have forgotten that the market determines "fair market value" by what people are willing to pay. You can bet any money that if the price and profit margin stay that high, other companies are going to begin manufacture, and as quickly as their capitalist selves can manage. Competition increases, price decreases, and the government regulation would have only slowed the progress.
Immigration, a hot issue for many, also can be viewed with the perspective of granting individuals freedom. Not allowing people who want to come to our country to work and support their families borders on insane. More workers, in an unregulated market, make for increased entrepreneurship and more labor to work at the new jobs created through deregulation.
Gun control and ownership are also a major key to a free society. You, as a person, have a right to own a gun. You do not have a right to assault other people with it. The problem with a society with stringent gun control is that violent criminals will still have illegally purchased guns, while law-abiding citizens will not. Like the saying goes, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Guns are the best way to protect yourself against violent crime. Often, something as simple as a "Proud Member of the NRA" sticker in your window will deter a robbery in an unsafe neighborhood. Criminals may be immoral, but they are not stupid: they value their lives above your possessions. In England and Australia, after the passage of stringent gun control, the rate of violent crime increased by a factor of four. You can't argue against results.
As the last important issue I will touch upon, the military and terrorism is the foremost in many people's minds. In a libertarian society, it goes without saying that there would never be a draft. The military would be withdrawn from the 130 nations it currently occupies, and kept at home only to be used defensively, and to secure our borders against foreign enemies. In times of severe national emergency, such as an invasion or coup, the populace would be sufficiently armed to defend itself against any removal of their rights. With our borders secured, and immigrants screened to protect against entry of terrorists, we would put up the best defense against terror. Simply withdrawing our troops from meddling in the affairs of other nations would stop much terrorism at its source. We would return to the government of Jefferson, with "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all people, entangling alliances with none."
Who knows what is best for you? Bush or Kerry? Can you say with certainty that someone you've likely never met before is capable of making decisions that have a large effect on your life, let alone that he or she is better at making those decisions than you are? If you can't, then you should consider the Libertarian Party. One of the key concepts of the libertarian philosophy is self-ownership, and you are in the position to say what is best for you. The other key belief is that you have a right to protection against coercion and fraud. These are the only necessary regulations in a free market, so that all transactions are completely voluntary and benefit both parties. From these simple core ideas, you can build a working government, stressing personal freedom and responsibility. There you are, the blueprints of a better world.
With simple rules such as these, you can let people live happy lives. The key factor is that they live a life as they choose. You own your body and the work you do. Nobody in the world has more of a right to dictate what you do than yourself. As a personal philosophy, libertarianism is very good. You do not infringe on the rights of others to live their lives as they see fit, and this will work. However, freedom without responsibility is entirely unfeasible. If you do choose to steal, kill, or assault another freedom-loving libertarian, the consequences will be your restitution of their loss, and your punishment. Police forces would be greatly aided by this transition to libertarianism, and we could keep more violent criminals off the streets. What will be the source of this great improvement in service? The police will have roughly twice their current resources when they no longer need to hunt down so called "criminals" whose only "crime" has no victim at all. The police will be able to pursue important things, such as murders and assaults, without their hands tied by the sheer volume of drug cases. On average, drug offenders can expect to spend more time in prison than rapists, even if they harmed nobody in the process. The rapists receive early release, because the prison is so crowded by drug offenders. Is this what America stands for?
By ending federal drug prohibition, we can kill several birds with one stone. Our prisons will no longer be overcrowded, and our streets will be safer because rapists and murderers can stay incarcerated. People will no longer need to steal to support their habits, instead being able to afford their drug of choice with honest work. Basic economics dictates that when the supply is strongly limited with a steadily growing demand, prices will increase to incredible heights. Legalization of drugs will increase the supply so that it can meet market demands, and lower prices will result. With prices removed from the current astronomical heights, drugs will no longer function as an effective source of income for terrorist organizations and gangs.
In the history of the US and the world, whatever the government can do, can be better accomplished by private institutions, often with better results and at lower cost. Throwing 5 trillion dollars at the problem of poverty since Johnson began his "Great Society" reforms has not eradicated poverty, nor raised the standard of living for everyone in the United States, nor ended the problem of homelessness. Privatizing government aid and handouts, not increasing them, is the path to better aid and service. While poverty cannot be eliminated, a dollar for dollar tax credit for those contributing to social-welfare-type charities will better help serve the needy. Rather than confiscation of Social Security to give to the elderly now, allowing people to take it and invest it themselves will allow for people to better afford retirement.
In a market unregulated by the government, things would stabilize and become more competitive; additional regulation drives up costs of everything and puts large corporations at an advantage over smaller businesses. When the government says you don't have a right to charge people what they're willing to pay, that prevents you from making as much money as capitalism dictates you should be able to from your investment. Take for example the current problem with flu shots. The prices of flu shots in Florida skyrocketed up to $900 per vial after the supply was cut in half, and the Attorney General of Kansas, Phil Kline, filed a suit against a company for not charging "fair market value." AG Kline seemed to have forgotten that the market determines "fair market value" by what people are willing to pay. You can bet any money that if the price and profit margin stay that high, other companies are going to begin manufacture, and as quickly as their capitalist selves can manage. Competition increases, price decreases, and the government regulation would have only slowed the progress.
Immigration, a hot issue for many, also can be viewed with the perspective of granting individuals freedom. Not allowing people who want to come to our country to work and support their families borders on insane. More workers, in an unregulated market, make for increased entrepreneurship and more labor to work at the new jobs created through deregulation.
Gun control and ownership are also a major key to a free society. You, as a person, have a right to own a gun. You do not have a right to assault other people with it. The problem with a society with stringent gun control is that violent criminals will still have illegally purchased guns, while law-abiding citizens will not. Like the saying goes, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Guns are the best way to protect yourself against violent crime. Often, something as simple as a "Proud Member of the NRA" sticker in your window will deter a robbery in an unsafe neighborhood. Criminals may be immoral, but they are not stupid: they value their lives above your possessions. In England and Australia, after the passage of stringent gun control, the rate of violent crime increased by a factor of four. You can't argue against results.
As the last important issue I will touch upon, the military and terrorism is the foremost in many people's minds. In a libertarian society, it goes without saying that there would never be a draft. The military would be withdrawn from the 130 nations it currently occupies, and kept at home only to be used defensively, and to secure our borders against foreign enemies. In times of severe national emergency, such as an invasion or coup, the populace would be sufficiently armed to defend itself against any removal of their rights. With our borders secured, and immigrants screened to protect against entry of terrorists, we would put up the best defense against terror. Simply withdrawing our troops from meddling in the affairs of other nations would stop much terrorism at its source. We would return to the government of Jefferson, with "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all people, entangling alliances with none."