Laissez Faire: The concept is nice, but terribly unrealistic as it negates the existence of the state. Minimal interventions are ideal,
along with various regulations that limit, if not eliminate systemic risk. Sorry to say, simply abolishing the Fed will not accomplish this goal.
End Drug Prohibition: Well, this is a rather dubious concept. Currently, there are not many "natural" drugs of which the use creates a "spillover" effect into other peoples lives. Due to various legislation, the shallow hollow of "illicit drug use" is essentially squat. Putting on an extra pain patch can kill you! It can ****ing kill a person in a marginal fashion after the second initial use!!!!! Booze, weed, cigarettes, fatty food, coke, shrooms, etc... have never killed someone after the second "hit".
Where would i draw the line? Not really sure, but i would start with "does it kill you" and work my way back.
Avid Interventionist Policy: Not really in support of pushing military muscle all over the globe. I also lose my sadness for people who live outside the US, and have a government that does not protect their basic rights, extremely fast, but more on that in a second.
Did starting two wars prevent a WWII style globalized war effort? IMHO no way, especially when we take into account the opposition.
End foreign aid: Here is the kicker: would you want to be traveling somewhere that was shut out from the rest of the world? I like traveling to Jamaica and believe that if we (US) did not give them $41 million a year in aid, i would not be going there. Not that i would want to travel to Somalia, but i think you get the point.
End gun bans: Every family has it's own missile system? Only if burglars and offenders begin using them as well. Automatic weapons, and what not are OK IMHO unless of course people think the have the right to walk around with them.
Deregulate health care: Here is the thing, when other peoples poor heath problems begin to spillover into my cost of health care, as well as actual quality, that just begs of inefficiency. Health care is totally inelastic and therefore consumers bare all of the costs.
Basically, i want elderly obese smokers with pre-existing conditions off my policy risk pool! How do you propose such a policy? Simple; we allow insurance companies to drop people at the drop of a dime, within the contractual context. To keep this from devastating the consumer, have the government create a public option to ensure competition. Reason be, if an insurance company keeps on dropping healthy people, they will find it much more beneficial to go with the public plan, thereby causing a severe revenue shortfall. Therefore, it will be in their best interest to develop a mutual relationship.
You try to stay healthy, and we will not drop your coverage If not, then off to the Public option you can go; you know, because they have a "choice"
How is that for deregulation?
Semi-amnesty for illegal aliens(work for amnesty): Here is an idea, build two big walls with hundreds of billions of dollars not spent in the stimulus package, and then allow anyone who passes proper screening to come here as they please. Of course, other nations will begin getting pretty ticked off as their engineers, doctors, scientists etc... begin to move here in droves (Brain Drain), but then again i do not care. If a woman does not like the treatment she receives in her country, escape to the US. I know it is not as easy as it sounds. But it sure as hell beats sending our soldiers off to fight for other people's freedom. My family originated here on a ****ty boat from Europe. :thinking
End welfare: Not a chance. You end welfare and you are then forced to feed a massive police state to deal with huge increases of criminals. The costs are just shifted, and we end up with more criminality. Hell, if you reasonable end drug prohibition, you would solve a big portion of the welfare problem IMHO....
Allow opting out of Social Security: OK, here is my only issue. What if we allow people to opt out, and some of them are far too stupid or ignorant to save their money for later on in life? Dump 'em in the gutter? Maybe in pre 1880's Germany, but not now. So here is the solution: You raise the freaking age limit!!!!!!! Originally in Germany, where SS was conceived, they placed the age at 70, and then brought it down to 65 around 20 years later.
Of course, there are going to be ramifications in the labor markets, as older folk will be working till later periods in their life, thereby increasing the proportion of frictional unemployment.
