Monday, June 21, 2010
Libertarians get my goat
I got a request on Facebook (yes, I'm on Facebook--whatever) to "like" the Libertarian Party and I read and learned some things.
To wit:
They say they are the "Third Largest Political Party". (Yeah, well, yeehaw, right?, since there have only been, really, two political parties for almost ever?) and they are for the following:
--Smaller government
--Lower taxes
--bringing home American troops from Afghanistan and Iraq and
--stopping the rewarding of failed companies with bailouts.
All good, right? Of course.
Then, there was this, last zinger--they want to "Cut taxes and spending and let the free market work."
This, of course, is where they lose me.
Don't get me wrong--even as a staunch, Liberal and Democrat (and I mean staunch), I'm all for shrinking the size of the Federal government. I've written that before. We should never have added the Homeland Security Department. I mean, what are the CIA and FBI for, anwyay?
But I digress.
It's this whole "cutting taxes" now, when we have HUGE deficits that is disturbing. I mean, no, none of us want to pay more or higher taxes, for sure but we do have our obligations, you know?
And as for letting "the free market work"--if I hear this one more time, I'm going to scream. (not literally, so don't start).
Does the Gulf oil spill mean nothing to anyone?
Does the banking industry collapse mean nothing to these people?
Do they not want clean water, air and soil?
How, exactly, for a specific instance, do you get and keep clean air, water and Earth, if corporations are not forced into it with laws, regulations and government oversight?
News flash: The answer is, you don't. You don't get and keep a clean environment, to choose one important issue, if you don't have a Congress pass laws and then a government department who makes sure the corporations do what they are legally supposed to do. It just doesn't happen.
So smaller government? Sure. Heck yeah. Bring it on.
But very little government and "free market" instead?
You'd have to be out of your selfish, pea-picking mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
The banking collapse was in part due to ham-fisted regulation, rather than the wrong amount. The free market would not have had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affecting the market.
I don't know what we do about continuing to rack up more obligations when we have such huge deficits.
The Gulf spill isn't "free markets"--It is what happens when the government puts safer areas off limits. The cleanup is also bungled. The Dutch offered 4 skimmers each capable of separating 6000 tons of oil per day. We could not use thembecause they are less than 99.9985% perfect at removing the oil before they put the ocean water back, and bureaucrats were interpreting anti-pollution rules as applying to the skimmer discharge water. It was over a month after they were offered before they were allowed to be used. The Coast Guard shut down barges being run by the State that were collecting oil, because they were not certain that the life jackets and fire extinguishers were proper.
Once again you are confusing libertarianism with anarchy or anarcho-capitalism. Property rights can easily be construed to limit pollution that affects the property of others, or the property of the government.
"Ham-handed"?
By ham-handed, I assume you mean there was too much regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Do I have that right? (don't read sarcasm into this. I'm leaving that out).
If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were regulated, they wouldn't have taken millions of dollars and lobbied Congress to let them do whatever they wanted and, at the same time, buy up BS loans from banks that weren't actually good, repayable triple-A bonded loans. These two needed more regulation and oversight, not less. If they had that, we wouldn't have them in the mess they're in now.
The Gulf spill isn't about "free markets", either? If federal regulators had--again--done their jobs and made sure the rig was secure, maybe it wouldn't have blown as it did.
Our government repeatedly, it seems, has a knack for turning down or screwing up foreign help, even and especially when we need it. The worst case of that was just after 9/11 when the Bush White House declined assistance from the rest of the free world, while we were falling apart. So it goes.
Seriously, I took the information from the Libertarian's own page. I don't think I misread their goals or intentions. I didn't once say anything of anarchy or even suggest it, I didn't think.
Anyway, thanks, as always, for writing in.
mr
Fannie and Freddie were created by the government. They never should have been created in the first place, and when privatized should have been completely privatized with no special dispensations.
Again--with true free markets, we would not be deepwater drilling in the gulf in the first place.
The Merchant Marine act makes it illegal for foreign ships to haul freight between 2 US destinations. Bush eventually suspended it during Katrina--but do we really need it at all today, or is this just protection for unionized seamen?
I don't know what you're basing your opinion on but it's because of our virtually total free market now that we're deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for oil. No government agency told them to go in there and drill.
If you'll notice, I agreed with 2 out of 3 of the positions the "Libertarians" posted online.
Just sayin'.
mr
True, nobody told them to drill there--they just said that they couldn't drill in all the other places that had oil.
Okay, you're right. That's absolutely true.
It's particularly true about and of California.
And do you remember why?
Years ago, there was one heck of an oil spill out there and they learned their lesson. Californians knew it was far too high an additional expense to run the risk of another big, ugly, killing, damaging oil spill on their doorstep.
Turns out they were right, too.
Good on them
mr
Post a Comment