|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 24, 2013 14:03:28 GMT
I'm a card carrying Libertarian but I'm also a pragmatic Libertarian. Political ideology is all well and good but they generally address Utopian societies that are never reflective of reality. Utopia doesn't exist and probably never will exist but that doesn't imply our ideals shouldn't be Utopian but instead that we must address reality as well and do so in a pragmatic manner.
For example the Libertarian Party and libertarians in general fundamentally endorse laizze faire (free market) capitalism. Laizze faire capitalism doesn't imply unregulated capitalism but instead requires regulation to protect the Rights of the Person to the maximum extent pragmatically possible. Such regulation can impose limitations upon the freedom of the person to exercise "free trade" but any such infringements should be to the least extent pragmatically possible to achieve the protections of the Rights of the Person.
For example we have coal-fired electrical power plants producing necessary energy that we need but they also produce a lot of pollution. No person (or entity) has a "Right to Pollute" as that pollution violates the Rights of the Person to clean air, water, and land that belongs to all of the People. But we need the energy so in addressing this issue we must pragmatically allow some pollution but how much pollution is a pragmatic consideration. We could "regulate" the coal fire power plants out of existence but to do this would increase the costs of electricity so much that it would adversely affect all of the people. So we allow some pollution. At the same time we have off the shelf technology according to the "coal industry" that can reduce the pollution by up to 40% without a significant increase in the cost of the electricity. Pragmatically we should mandate the use and conversion of coal fired power plants to employ this technology to reduce the violations of the Rights of the Person to clean air.
Pragmatic necessity allows the infringement upon of our Rights as a Person but such infringements should always be to the least extent possible to achieve the necessary protections based upon reality and not idealism.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 15, 2013 18:37:13 GMT
Balancing the Budget and Reducing Spending.
I've addressed how to balance the federal budget with a change in the federal taxes in another thread where "fair" taxation would be imposed for all income earners (with income taxes being the primary funding of the federal government) where everyone would be treated identically under the tax codes. To summarize quickly it creates a tax exemption for the first $50,000 if annual income from any source for any entity (personal or corporate), eliminates tax deductions (except for the "cost of doing business" for enterprises), privatizes Social Security over 40 years, and establishes a single tax rate for all income above the $50,000 exemption based upon how much the government spends (balancing the budget).
In my tax proposal it would lead to an end to the Social Security and Medicare "welfare" programs that currently exist but it would require the 40-45 year transitional timeframe to accomplish this. Social Security cannot be "privatized" for those 55 (as proposed by Republicans) because 10 years simply isn't long enough to invest and accumulate enough personal wealth to retire on. That requires a lifetime of investing for low income workers which I provide for. Over time it would cut the size of the federal government by about 1/3rd.
Reducing "welfare" spending is a tougher nut to crack the but solution is to address the problem. Welfare assistance mitigates the effects of poverty so to reduce welfare spending we need to reduce poverty. It can be noted that my "federal tax" proposal would reduce poverty by exempting the first $50,000/yr in income from taxation and by building personal wealth through privatization of Social Security were the individual is 100% vested in that program. This would logically take time for low income workers but because their "wealth" belongs to them it would be passed to their heirs at their death increasing the "family" wealth of even those in poverty. It would also provide at least 5-times the retirement income for those that currently receive poverty level Social Security benefits based upon today's Social Security welfare program.
More directly we need to address discrimination in employment where minorities and women are disadvantages in our workforce. This, more than anything else, would reduce poverty as minorities and women are primary recipients of welfare assistance today. This not something that our government can actually accomplish but instead must be addressed by the American people. We need to end or at least reduce prejudice because it is a primary reason behind poverty in America.
We cannot simply cut spending for "welfare" and ignore the problem of poverty. We must address the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 18, 2013 14:26:49 GMT
One Libertarian Party Platform item that I'm closely aligned with is its position on Gun Control although they miss or overlook some important issues. The Libertarian policy, in summary, is that banning firearms doesn't solve any problems, individuals have a Right of Self-Defense which includes having the right to own firearms as a means of self-defense for their family, their community, and even the nation, and that people should be held accountable for their actions under the law.
www.lp.org/issues/gun-laws
What the LP doesn't address are some of the details. For example the government does have a reasonable responsibility to ensure the public safety. Our traffic speed limits reflect this authority to provide for the public safety. Reasonable regulation related to providing for the public safety is both understandable and justifiable.
I've addressed firearms just like we address automobiles. If a person wants to drive a car on the public roads then they need a license and the vehicle must be registered. There are few restrictions related to a drivers license and car registration related to use on the public roads and there are no license or registration requirements for someone having a car on private property and driving. The same criteria and should be imposed on firearms. If the person wants to take a firearm into the public require them to be licensed and the firearm registered. If they want to keep a firearm on private property then no license or registration should be required because they don't represent a threat to the public safety.
I agree with the Libertarian position that firearms should never be banned. Even today we allow ownership of fully-automatic firearms such as the Thompson submachine gun and the M1919 fully automatic machine gun. It is rather stupid to say a person can't own a semi-automatic AR-15 when they can own a fully automatic M1919 machine gun. Of note there have only been one death related to a private person using a fully automatic firearm in the last 60 years.
The LP supports compliance with the law and I agree with that. It is (and should be) illegal to sell a firearm to a person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm based upon an order from the Court. It doesn't matter if they're a convicted felon or someone with a mental illness it is against the law to sell them a firearm. The problem today is that a private citizen can't run a background check using the FBI NICS database that would identify those prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. We need access and not a mandate to check the FBI NICS database. If we have that access, don't use it, then we would be criminally responsible for selling a firearm to a person prohibited from purchasing it.
Next it is against the law to purchase stolen property. Private citizens don't have access to a database that identifies stolen firearms. We need that access to prevent us from breaking the law. If caught in possession of a stolen firearm then once again this is a criminal offense and the person should be prosecuted for it.
Of note because a person that is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm is also committing a criminal act in attempting to purchase one we need a "button" that would alert law enforcement immediately of our location if a prohibited person does attempt to purchase a firearm. A simple push of the button could summon law enforcement to arrest the person that is violating the law. If this isn't done then we can refuse to sell them the firearm but they just go down the road to purchase it from someone else.
The same is true for a database containing stolen firearm information. The person trying to sell a stolen firearm is violating the law by possessing it and we need to be able to summon law enforcement so they will be arrested and prosecuted. Simply sending them down the road by refusing to buy doesn't address the crime that we need addressed.
None of my pragmatic solutions violate or infringe upon our Right of Self-Defense and all are pragmatic solutions to issues of public safety and law enforcement.
|
|
