"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
My answer is I would take a fire axe to the Federal government, slashing all functions that are not expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. The reasons / justifications would take several entire books of text to fully discuss, but that's what I would do.
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
That's about what I expected. No detail, no answers. It's hard to take a proposal like that seriously and that's why Libertarians aren't taken seriously. Similarly to liberals, their ideas are great in theory, but not practical. But at least liberals can sometimes define what they believe beyond painfully general statements.
"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
That's not much of a counter- argument, but if you prefer liberalism to libertarianism, I can't honestly say I'm surprised. That seems to be rampant around these parts.
I provided you with a very specific answer; "every function that is not expressly delegated by the Constitution". If you require more details, just let me know what details you need.
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
Look at the federal budget. Almost half of it goes to healthcare and defense. I'm not in favor of cutting defense funding, but that's a personal opinion and the military could get by with some cuts. But I would be more in favor of reallocating those funds to increase pay for soldiers. Healthcare. Healthcare is a mess. We spend more money on it than we get out of it and Obamacare is only going to make that worse. Healthcare needs major reform. I don't know that I would cut funding there, but again, we need to use it in a smarter way (and yes, I believe Romney had a smarter way). Government pensions. Way too much is spent on pensions in this country. Major cuts could made in that area. And then the beast of them all - welfare. Welfare needs major reform and cuts. It needs to be harder to get on, harder to stay on, and funding in that area should go way down in general. I have a number of ideas as far as how to reform welfare, admittedly unpolished, but I think we can it in a much better way. Most of the rest is infrastructure. I think it's too broad a subject to comment on accurately, but I imagine much like the other areas, most of the money is needed to but needs better direction. So to me, fiscally, I don't see where you are going to make major spending cuts outside of government pay and welfare. Government pay/pensions aren't going to go anywhere, well, because they are largely controlled by those who receive them. Which leads to your idea that something major needs to change in our government. But what element is that? What fundamentals do you change that allows for smaller government and less spending? Simply saying that it needs to happen, without offering any kind of answers, is silly. And it's exactly what the politicians we criticize do. So let's be better than that and try to figure this out without generalizations that don't get us anywhere. To me, I don't see where we can make the kind of cuts you are talking about, without infringing on the constitution. A lot of money is wasted in government, but it's money that we should spend in the areas that it is already invested in, just more effectively. But I don't know how you fix that.
"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
And how does that work? What happens to infrastructure? Do private corporations fix the roads just out of the goodness of their hearts? And what about citizens who genuinely cannot work and need help living on their own? Are they supposed to mooch off of their families for their entire lives? Go ahead and call me a liberal, but simply taking funds away from areas where we need government spending creates more problems than it fixes.
"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
Judging from your response here, I think I will just "go ahead and call you a liberal". You seriously think that we can't get by without the Federal government to "fix the roads" and "provide for those who cannot provide for themselves"? That must be an East coast thing.
Your disagreement with the liberals is not over ideology, but of execution. That makes you much more like them than actual conservatives.
The Federal government doesn't exist to provide for you like it's your mommy. It exists to protect your freedom and protect your ability to provide for yourself.
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
I have already called you what I want (or rather what I think you are), and you haven't disputed it. I also notice that you haven't made any distinction between "governing force" and "benevolent collectivism", which is pretty much socialism.
You, Sir, need to sit down and give some serious thought about what the proper role of government is, 'cuz from what I see here, it doesn't fit under any definition of "conservatism" I've ever heard of.
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
Nothing I've said here is intended as an insult. It's merely an objective statement of fact.
Your whole argument is that the basic precepts of conservatism "can't work", you're defending the Federal government doing things it's not authorized to do, and giving well- meaning slogans about how beneficial it is to have a big Federal government to provide for us. That's what liberalism *is*.
I'm trying to point out how self- conflicted your approach is, and inviting you to figure out where your ideology actually lies.
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
^ Hell, I'm even willing to help you sort it out. It seems to me that you want all the advantages of a big, benevolent government but without all the disadvantages that come with it. That's not conservatism.
- - - Updated - - -
The State and Local governments fix the roads, and the States provide for those with disabilities. Just as they have always done.
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
Answer my question and then we can label me, if that's really the discussion you're interested in having here.
- - - Updated - - -
So you're saying state governments can survive on their own without help from allocated federal funds? I'd have to disagree there with the possible exception of Texas.
"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
Interesting. So the hundreds of billions of dollars that the federal government gives to state governments every single year goes to what exactly? Because I know for a fact the state of Pennsylvania receives billions in grants from D.C. for infrastructure that the state couldn't afford to pay for otherwise.
"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
Again, your idea is great in theory, but not practice. State A. requires $700 billion in federal money to maintain living conditions, while state B. only needs $12 billion. State B is doing just fine, probably making a profit, thriving - but do we just condemn state A because they can't afford to pay for anything they need? "United States" not "Individual States". Smaller government is great, but to operate under this pretense that a federal body isn't needed whatsoever is beyond naīve.
- - - Updated - - -
We need to put the decision making in the hands of state and local government, but expecting them to pay for everything alone is unrealistic.
"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
Give a lib a fish--he eats for a day
Teach a lib to fish--he is back the next day asking for more free fish.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Is providing funds for state needs expressly delegated by the constitution? I've only read the document once but I don't believe that was defined.
- - - Updated - - -
Good post. This thread has turned into a living definition of what is wrong with Libertarian ideals. And the Libertarian is doing most of the convincing of that.
"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
Umm... it had always worked just fine up to the point where the Feds took it over and used it as a bludgeon to exercise control over the States.
But yeah... "Conservatism doesn't work". Whatever. Be who you are and quit pretending to be something you're not.
/It's 1:00 and I have to get up in the morning to support the collective...
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
And that folks, is how you disarm a naīve Libertarian who will not answer direct questions because fact of the matter is, he cannot
"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
Just to recap...
Originally Posted by GoSlash27
Originally Posted by GoSlash27
Originally Posted by GoSlash27
Originally Posted by GoSlash27
Originally Posted by GoSlash27
But wait!
Originally Posted by GoSlash27
Night night, Dawg. Errr I mean Slash.
Libertarians have some good ideas. But they have been hijacked by conservative extremists like Slash. And it's hard for me to use that term, as it has been overused by liberals so often. But you can't simply severe all ties state and local governments have to a federal body and expect it to work. It isn't realistic. What we need to do, is give decision making back to state and local governments but continue to help fund those bodies with federal money.
"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
I'm most definitely a libertarian, and a conservative one at that. The problem however, is that there often isn't any balance associated with political positions. It's all zero-sum games. Yet, on the other hand, when you say, "continue to help fund those bodies with federal money," you also hand control right back to the federal government, and it also betrays a deeper level of thinking that I am very much in disagreement with.
There is no such thing as "federal money," only "my money" and "your money" that the federal government takes and then hands back out, and a good portion of it is done for political favors. Yes, I do believe that there needs to be a federal collection of money to raise and keep a standing army, to help facility commerce between the states and abroad, and to assure justice (personal liberties trump state's rights, which trump federal IMO, which is why I believe the federal government was right to step in and end segregation. It wasn't a state's rights issue, it was a personal rights issue). But those things need to be done on a large, pre-planned scale that delimits the amount of manipulation a small group of politicians can have over it.
In truth, there is nothing wrong with Libertarian ideals. Each and every person has the right by God or Nature (however you want to put it), to make of him or her self whatever they choose, and the least amount of shackles placed on that person, is the most moral government to govern that person, and that, is a libertarian government.
The issues here is, how can we get Libertarian ideals to play out in the real world without ending up in anarchy or retreating to a statist position.