I don't necessarily agree with it, but from the beginning I can see that it is biased and the bias is a result of the person who wrote it forming a reactionary point of view based off of a few fanatical statements he heard from Libertarians., generalizing.
I think that the most effective system of economic and social governance in the United States would be to have states take back their original powers and have programs like Social Security and MediCare become state-level programs (Except for the disabled, who are universally more subject to their environment and the infrastructure around them [Public transportation, etc.] than other regular non-employed or elderly people; this would include those who become disabled in some way as a result of old age).
I do not think that the federal government is adequately able to compartmentalize economic risk. When ongress collected money almost one-hundred years ago, billions of dollars were spent on things that had nothing to do with Social Security. To my knowledge, that is why we are a generation behind in payments, and why the current generation of workers (You and I) are paying for our grandparents- because of a negative balance passed onto the American public by the United States Congress as a result of their irresponsibility.
I am an investor, although I started with a very small amount, and still only have a very small amount, but I know what the company whose shares I hold is worth and what its potential is, and when I bought shares in said company, my mindset was: "Well, if the company doesn't work out, I lose a few thousand dollars. If it does work out, I make ten-thousand or more." I saw monumental upside, and that's how I assessed it. I see it as being all about risk-aversion, isolating the consequences of bad decisions.
Now.. a lot of states are in debt as a result of irresponsibility on their part too. But why are they in debt? Could it have something to do with the fact that they are inevitably bailed out by the federal government- that they do not have to bear the consequences of their own actions? A compartmentalizing of the US economy by states taking back their rightful powers would cause some harm and displace some people, I see that as a result of the ill-effects that have only been masked- and not eliminated, by our current system of top-down federal governance of the economy which has artificially put people who need help on life-support without making them any more dependent, and the situation has become such that if people want to gain by becoming dependent, they will first have to lose.
So is the solution to dealing with a drug addict who will go through withdrawl and hurt themselves during their time of recovery, to give them more drugs so as to keep them from hurting themselves? No, the underlying problem still exists.
My two cents.
An Interesting Read on Libertarianism
Started by The Puppet Master, Feb 13 2012 04:10 PM
1 reply to this topic
Posted 13 February 2012 - 04:10 PM
Posted 13 February 2012 - 05:23 PM
I think the idea of states having more power is attractive; mostly for the fact that it would allow more diversity in legislation and give Americans more choices in living with a government they agree with while still living in the U.S.A. How much power to be gained is tricky though, because it can't be so much that separate states start to resemble separate countries.