The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism;
If classic Republicanism is conservatism, wouldn't liberalism be the exact opposite and therefore the biggest threat?
it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says 'look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government.'
Wrong, eliminating government is anarchism, which is usually a part of Libertarianism. There's also Minarchism which says that the state is a necessary evil. Is there "social liberalism" in the movement? Yes, but there's also those of us who believe the federal government shouldn't legislate morals. Economic conservatism is a cornerstone of classic Republicanism, just as it was for the Bourbon Democrats.
If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it.
I never read anything by a libertarian that said "so be it" about this. We always say that the free market will take care of this. The only reason there's not a low-priced medical plan is because of government. To statists, this seems like a paradox. Think of it in terms of a rock in a sea. The water, or the markets, go around it. Without the rock (government), the water would flow right by. This is what libertarians believe.
And it doesn't even have to be the markets proper. Charities could spring up.
If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.'
Again, free markets would take care of this. Public schools have some of the best tools and facilities for students, yet (at least in NY), they fail miserably. If a provider does not provide a service well, they go out of business. When the government fails, they throw more money at it.
Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message.
*phew* Glad to know I'm not an American! I think an adventure is in order to find out what exactly I am.
It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people.
Truth, we're collectivists. Err, they, I forgot, I'm not an American.
That's not historic Republicanism.
More truth, historical Republicanism (I'm going way back) is neoconservative and protectionist at best and murderous at worst
Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be.
The government interfering in people's private lives means that there's not as little as there can be.
But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.
Whoa, hey, holy excise taxes Huckman!
If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ...
Not nearly as much as keeping the social structure up.
police on the streets,
Think we already have that. Oh, wait, you mean to keep the social structure. Wait, if the social structure falls, I think that means the police failed. Woops.
prison beds,
If we end the drug war, we won't need so many. Wait, if we do, somehow the social structure will collapse. Hm, I'm starting to see a pattern that statism bring more and more.
court costs,
Again, end the drug war. Also, stop ticketing people for not wearing seatbelts. Oh, right, seatbelts are going to lead to the collapse of the social structure.
alcohol abuse centers,
If the social structure collapses, there will be alcoholism? Or does alcoholism lead to the collapse of the social structre? Either way, more statism!
domestic violence shelters,
So, if we get our way, there will be more domestic violence? I just can't wrap my head around that logic...
all are very expensive.
Ya don't say?
What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say 'yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff.'
It is quite expensive. Again, the markets would come in at the very least.
But what you've done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community.
I dunno, it seems that private charity is better. You feel better giving money instead of having it taken, right? I'm sure most libertarians would support private charities and enterprises. Heck, maybe even most people. But if they don't want to, what does that say about using their tax dollars to? Well, that would be stealing. Stealing is a sin, isn't it Revvie?
You can take the cops off the streets
Not a bad idea. They aren't on my streets. They seem to look for trouble whenever I see them elsewhere.
and just quit funding prison beds.
Not a bad idea either. Private prisons would be far more accountable.
Are your neighborhoods safer?
If yes, no need for cops. If no, the neighbors will band together and form a neighborhood watch.
Is it a better place to live?
Without having to worry about being tasered? heck yes.
The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before."
I bet!
I think most minarchists would support a small, efficient (government and efficient?) force. Cut the drug war, no need for the DEA or all those funky militarized gagets. Will people lose jobs? Sure, but they'll find employment elsewhere. In the meanwhile, we'll have more money.
P.S. Nice not so secret shot at Ron Paul.
No comments:
Post a Comment