An interesting alternative but he’ll need to come to terms with the fact that with such an unemployment rate, the government has to spend money on people.
Does the government have to spend money on people though? How about giving money to people instead? It might sound nitpicky, but the latter is not incompatible with libertarian ideals. Milton Friedman advocated for a universal basic income in the form of a negative income tax back in the 60's.
I'm not a libertarian, but I don't think this is inconsistent with those ideals. There are general rules that I am really strict on, but in emergencies I'm more than willing to suspend them. For example I am really against my dumping water on me, but if I'm on fire - bring on the water. To me this is one of those times, this is what government is for...which makes the current response and leadership pretty sad.
To those who are generally more left-leaning, I would suggest that a libertarian in the White House might not be a terrible thing. Our individual states are huge, similar in size to European countries and would be more free to implement whatever social programs and regulations they'd see fit. Blue states end up sending more money to Washington than they get back and have to fight the federal government for regulatory authority.
I'm not libertarian but I am pretty pro-localism. Meaning that each area and state may decide on different rules to live by. That means Texas letting California have some liberal abortion laws, and California letting Texas have liberal gun rights. It means my state might have dry Sunday laws (repeal them please!) and other states may legalize gambling or prostitution. Or within my state the next town may have a legal brothel, while my town doesn't allow that sort of thing. I think the more local these decisions, the more people can live with it. We have to stop thinking that our priorities and what works best for me is what works best for everyone everywhere.
I love the idea of a non-senile candidate running for president. But it’s definitely too late for that. It looks like we’re stuck with a very soon octogenarian for the first time in history.
An interesting alternative but he’ll need to come to terms with the fact that with such an unemployment rate, the government has to spend money on people.
Does the government have to spend money on people though? How about giving money to people instead? It might sound nitpicky, but the latter is not incompatible with libertarian ideals. Milton Friedman advocated for a universal basic income in the form of a negative income tax back in the 60's.
Interesting! I didn’t know that UBI was compatible with libertarian thinking. I’ll look into that. I always saw it as a leftist thing
I'm not a libertarian, but I don't think this is inconsistent with those ideals. There are general rules that I am really strict on, but in emergencies I'm more than willing to suspend them. For example I am really against my dumping water on me, but if I'm on fire - bring on the water. To me this is one of those times, this is what government is for...which makes the current response and leadership pretty sad.
A non-senile candidate for president! He's got my vote.
I loved his Independence Day essay from last summer: Our politics is in a partisan death spiral. That’s why I’m leaving the GOP.
To those who are generally more left-leaning, I would suggest that a libertarian in the White House might not be a terrible thing. Our individual states are huge, similar in size to European countries and would be more free to implement whatever social programs and regulations they'd see fit. Blue states end up sending more money to Washington than they get back and have to fight the federal government for regulatory authority.
I'm not libertarian but I am pretty pro-localism. Meaning that each area and state may decide on different rules to live by. That means Texas letting California have some liberal abortion laws, and California letting Texas have liberal gun rights. It means my state might have dry Sunday laws (repeal them please!) and other states may legalize gambling or prostitution. Or within my state the next town may have a legal brothel, while my town doesn't allow that sort of thing. I think the more local these decisions, the more people can live with it. We have to stop thinking that our priorities and what works best for me is what works best for everyone everywhere.
"Pro-localism" is a great concept. I might start calling myself a localist.
Well said!
He’s no Marianne Williamson, but I’ll pay attention.
I love the idea of a non-senile candidate running for president. But it’s definitely too late for that. It looks like we’re stuck with a very soon octogenarian for the first time in history.
Ha, agreed.