Sebastian (kmilligan) wrote in libertycaucus,
Sebastian
kmilligan
libertycaucus

Who is Liberty's Worst Enemy?

The answer is.... The Libertarians!. If there's any group that could make freedom and liberty into a kooky political movement, it's the Libertarians. It seems odd that I'd start out posting by blasting the party of liberty, but I think at this point hey are actually doing more harm than good. I'll be making a series of posts dissecting Badnarik's stated positions. I'll start in the order he had them listed on his web page (looks like he's revising it right now. Maybe even he realizes how nutty some of it sounds). OK... so let me dive in:



The RIGHT to keep and bear arms
Michael is most passionate about defending the Second Amendment, and holds that 20,000+ gun laws in the United States unconstitutionally infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Americans are not required to fill out government forms in order to practice their religion, and they cannot be required to obtain government permits before they carry a gun for self-defense.

Yes, nothing like starting off with an issue that 90% of the electorate doesn't give a rats ass about. However, Libertarians can take votes away from Republicans on the gun issue, so in some ways it makes sense to include it prominently. Nonetheless, does he really think all 20,000+ gun laws in the United States are unconstitutional? This is from someone who is supposedly a constitutional scholar? No right in the constitution is absolute. While I interpret the second amendment as recognizing a broad right to bear arms, I don't think all restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. I don't think any serious constitutional scholar would agree that all 20,000 have to go. A much smarter political position would be that he believe in the second amendment. That's all that he really needs to say. When specific issues are brought up, they can be addressed individually.
Education instead of government controlled schools
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare was instituted in 1953 at a time when American students ranked number one in math and science worldwide. In 2003, after fifty years of government control of our schools, we spend ten times as much per student on education, and American students now rank twenty-first in math and science. Even if the Department of Education was constitutional - which it isn't - we should eliminate that agency simply because they are doing such a terrible job. Michael's plan would be to eliminate government control of schools, making each one a private business that is required to compete with others in the area. Parents would naturally send their children to the best schools in the area, which would make a significant profit for successful schools. Other schools would either improve their ability to impart knowledge, or they would be forced out of business altogether.

The republicans got eaten alive for wanting to eliminate the department of education. While I would agree on principle that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate education, it's not a winning political issue. This is something libertarians should keep to themselves. Also, it was easy for US students to be number one in Math and Science worldwide in 1953. Most of Europe and Japan were smoking ruins after World War II. I'd also like to find out how, as President of the United States, Michael Badnarik has the constitutional authority to privatize a single school. Last I checked, it wasn't the federal government running public schools. Libertarians should just shut up about education. Supporting vouchers would be a smart idea, and would get us closer to a state of liberty. Vouchers are something normal people can support.
War on Drugs
The government's war on drugs violates the rights of Americans so egregiously that it is a bigger threat than the drugs themselves. Libertarians do not want our children taking drugs either, but we recognize that the several decades of drug interdiction haven't slowed the flow of narcotics into this country. Children take drugs because criminals actively sell them. Criminals sell drugs because they are astronomically profitable. Drugs are highly profitable only because they are illegal. The Libertarian solution is to decriminalize drugs, which will make drugs extremely cheap, which will remove the profit motivation for selling drugs, which will result in fewer children taking drugs.

I think Libertarians are spending too much time smoking the stuff. What the hell? This sounds like a lame attempt at using 'the children' as an excuse to promote the agenda. It's awkward and doesn't work for this issue. Cheaper drugs will mean more kids will use them, because taking drugs feels good. Why not use the argument that if dealers are licensed, they have an incentive not to sell to children. But wait, I forgot, Libertarians can't support licensing to operate a business. Can't tax the stuff either, because that's theft.

Up next: Income Taxes, Restoring a non-inflatable currency, and the Patriot Act.
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 2 comments