• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Libertarianism unrealistic?

Are Libertarians unrealistic?

  • Total voters
    86
Deuce said:
It is the end result of many libertarian policy agendas.
Click to expand...

An excellent point. Libertarians enjoy the luxury of pie-in-the-sky and its a pie that they never have to make... or bake ... or market ... or serve to the public because the public treats them like a skull and crossbones on a medicine bottle. So their ideas are all nonsense that they know will never be tested so they have the luxury of purity and no compromise.

Their consequences would be like the libertarian who goes to Germany and sees the cars on the autobahn with no speed limits in places and reads how safe it is. So he comes back to Wisconsin and proposes that they do the same thing on the expressways there. Government just cannot buy into the concept of no speed limits so they adopt one of 90 mph instead. Deaths and accidents soar through the roof and the media and everybody else wants the libertarians head on a pike. But with a straight face and complete sincerity and without a qualm of conscience he stands tall and proclaims that he NEVER proposed a speed limit of 90 MPH and accepts not a shred of responsibility for THEIR IDEA and the havoc it caused.

That is the real world blindness to the consequences of libertarian policy from the libertarian mindset in action and why we never will see it here in the USA.

Thank the good judgment of the American people for that good fortune.
 
In a normal election I would say they don't have a chance. This is not your normal election. With Clinton and Trump's unfavorable ratings and peoples desire for change, who knows. If Johnson can play that moderate edge, he could actually have a chance.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The Libertarian social agenda is perfectly feasible, even if the American people would have a hard time surrendering their authoritarian instincts to that degree.

The Libertarian foreign agenda is unrealistic. Even if we dismantle the military-industrial complex and stop fighting wars for corporate profits, we still have national security and economic interests that require our engagement on the world stage. We have treaties and alliances that we are honor-bound to.

The Libertarian economic agenda is quite frankly bat**** insane. There's no way a post-industrial economy can survive without the welfare programs the Libertarians want to dismantle, not to mention the public education system and government support for vocational and post-secondary education; this is literally economic and cultural suicide. While we could certainly stand for a good deal of deregulation in most industries-- finance and insurance being notable exceptions-- we can't simply throw consumer and labor rights legislation to the wind and let "the market" sort it out.
Click to expand...
I might have some minor quibbles on details, but overall I think you pretty much nailed it on all three points.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Korimyr the Rat said:
The Federal government is authorized by the 16th Amendment and the General Welfare clause to collect income taxes and to spend those tax revenues on programs that benefit the citizenry. The government may justify a good deal of unlawful encroachment of personal and economic liberty by invoking the Commerce clause and the General Welfare clause, but you can not credibly argue that it's support of our educational, housing, and nutritional needs is not Constitutionally authorized.
Click to expand...
The federal government was not intended to nor was it authorized to have authority to collect taxes to 'benefit' anybody. It was authorized to collect taxes for it authorized responsibility to perform the necessary things that allowed the various states to function as one nation. The Founders knew the dangers of selected 'benefit' and how it would turn into issuing taxpayer money in return for power, influence, and personal benefit. They knew how it could create dependencies and destroy initiative and self-reliance--see my signature. They knew how it could become a 'pay to play' system that made people the pawns of the central government rather than a government of the people.
Click to expand...
You're both correct. The federal government was not intended (past tense) or authorized to collect taxes for various things. Then, the 16th Amendment was passed, and amendments are legitimate modifications to the Constitution, so now the federal government IS (present tense) authorized to collect taxes for various things.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Baloney. The people who wrote the original Constitution and who passed the 16th Amendment were not stupid nor that far removed from the original intent of the Constitution. The Founders pretty much to a man were opposed to the federal government having any authority to extend benevolence to anybody domestic or foreign. The Congress that passed the 16th amendment did so out of concern that the U.S. would not be able to defend itself should strong military powers in Europe and Japan become belligerent--it was a national defense rather than a general welfare rationale--and the states that ratified it did so because they saw an income tax as less regressive than the tariffs that had been funding the federal government.
Click to expand...
The founders also allowed for Constitutional modification. So they knew that not all of their original concepts would hold forever. Hence, what they thought is not as sacrosanct as some would like them to be.
 
radcen said:
You're both correct. The federal government was not intended (past tense) or authorized to collect taxes for various things. Then, the 16th Amendment was passed, and amendments are legitimate modifications to the Constitution, so now the federal government IS (present tense) authorized to collect taxes for various things.
Click to expand...

The 16th Amendment says:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.​

The 16th amendment gave the federal government wide authority to collect the revenue it needs. It did not give the federal government authority to use that money for anything not assigned to it by the U.S. Constitution.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The 16th Amendment says:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.​

The 16th amendment gave the federal government wide authority to collect the revenue it needs. It did not give the federal government authority to use that money for anything not assigned to it by the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the Commerce Clause covers that. ;)
 
radcen said:
I'm sure the Commerce Clause covers that. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm sure opportunistic politicians use the Commerce Clause in ways it was never ever intended to be used. And once they do and get away with it, stare decisis is their justification for continuing the technically illegal practices and policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom