As an admittedly existentialist Christian conservative-libertarian (or perhaps a Christian existentialist libertarian-conservative — you decide), it’s clear to me that the U.S. has gone astray. To the leftoids and the feminists and the otherwise morally corrupt, the country is on the absolute correct track — and the terrible economy and failures of Obamacare can easily be attributed to those evil, greedy Republicans and libertarians who value free market solutions. Of course, those of us in the realm of sanity and economic reason know they’re absolutely bat-shit crazy and that the derailment of the greatness of America can be attributed to several factors: Continue reading
When discussing my political views with friends, family, coworkers, and random strangers on the internet, I encounter a common misconception about the philosophy of libertarianism (and no, not the assumption that roads won’t exist in a libertarian-controlled environment). The intent of this entry is to elucidate further what libertarianism is as well as what it simply isn’t. Before I reveal the common misconception, let’s review a few basics about libertarianism. Continue reading
I realized the other day that I may not be living up to my goal of consistency as well as I could be. I’ve always tried to abstain from negativity and instead focus on solutions, and my most recent blog entry regarding the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors mentioned that an ideology based solely on what one is against will never find traction. Yet, my entire blog has been dedicated to those solutions and ideas of which I am against. An effort in mild hypocrisy, to say the least.
I like to think my mantra, if I had one, would probably be something like, “I do not tell others why they are wrong; instead, tell them why I am right.” Needless to say, I haven’t lived up to this ideology with this blog, and it’s time to change that.
If I were elected president tomorrow, my policies would likely be as follows:
My first move would be to try to abolish Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. As we’ve seen since its inception, nothing good has come of it — instead of allowing us to easily handle the illegal immigration problem, we are forced into a corner because families are torn apart when illegal immigrants are deported but their children are not.
Our border with Mexico would become heavily regulated and monitored. Nobody would get in or out without the United States government knowing about it. If needed, a wall would be erected.
All illegal immigrants found in the U.S. would either be deported or slammed with heavy fines and a catch-up on their taxes. For example, if a family entered the country illegally in 2008 but weren’t caught until 2012, they would be required to pay back taxes for four years or face immediate deportation.
Any illegal immigrants arrested for any crime would immediately be deported back to their country of origin — no questions asked. Some say this will cost more than imprisonment, but sometimes the principle behind the act is more important. Besides, with a strong border, this will only be a temporary problem.
Despite my harsh view on illegal immigration, I do believe a reasonable path to immigration should be offered. Those who wish to become citizens must be offered some type of visa while they study our laws, history, and customs. However, if they do not become a citizen within a certain timeframe (say, two years), they should be deported.
Our attention to the Canadian border should not be dissuaded by the focus on the Mexican border. I don’t think a wall is needed, but terrorists may think it’s easier to enter from the north if there aren’t any walls. I would pull the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and place them at our borders, including Canada’s.
Social Security (Medicare/Medicaid)
These government programs would be abolished almost immediately. The U.S. government has not kept its promise in leaving this investment alone. Instead, it has dipped its hand into it, withdrawn from it, and perverted its original intent. I’m not saying it was a bad idea; I’m saying it was a bad idea to entrust it to the government.
I wouldn’t even try to offer a plan to privatize it. Under my administration, this program would disappear. A private corporation or individual could pick it up if so desired, but the government would no longer play a part in people’s investments.
The United States’ executive agencies, which are formed by the president, are overused and wasteful. My administration would take a close look at many of these agencies, determine which ones weren’t contributing to the success of America, and cut them. The Department of Education is a prime example. It has thrown money at America’s schools, providing incentive to rich communities while demotivating the poor, and has accomplished nothing. Instead of throwing money at an agency (which in turn throws money to states), any taxes gained for the purpose of education would be divvied out to the states based on population. Ideally, no money would be given to the states, and they would regulate education themselves.
The federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion. The states should determine their approach on abortion.
War on Drugs
There should be no war on drugs at a federal level. This is another state issue. Any taxes levied for the purpose of countering drug use should be given to the states, in which they can more appropriately decide what’s best for them and how to spend it.
If I could not persuade the remainder of the federal government to discontinue its war on drugs, I would at least send the money to schools to educate children on the dangers of drugs. Money spent on removing drug runners and leaders only results in more drug runners and leaders.
The federal government has no place in providing or forcing citizens to purchase health care. No such power is given in the Constitution, and the Commerce Clause hardly applies.
That being said, it is not unconstitutional for states to draft their own health care laws or offer a public option, and I would make no effort to restrain them from doing so.
The PATRIOT Act would be immediately abolished. TSA would be removed from airports, but the funds originally given to them would be appropriated to these airports to fund their own security. I would likely make it mandatory to have security at airports, and while I would enforce moderate regulation, I would not send government agents to perform security checks.
I believe that the right to own a firearm is God-given and inalienable. However, I do see the reasoning behind restricting incredibly effective weaponry such as assault rifles and machine guns. Class III licenses would still exist as well as background checks. However, restrictions would be no different from one area to the next.
I would also ensure that no state’s attempt to subvert this right would go unnoticed or unpunished. Inner city citizens have every right to defend themselves as those living in rural areas. Any bans on handguns would be immediately lifted.
If it hasn’t been obvious, I believe the federal government is not a source of job creation. My focus would be the removal of many government jobs, sending those who lose theirs out into the “real world” to produce real goods or services.
I would provide incentives for manufacturing in the U.S. Green jobs would take no priority over other jobs, and the federal government would provide no subsidization of such jobs. They have not been proven to be efficient, and as such do nothing to help the economy or job creation. Besides, we remember what happened with Obama’s support and funding of Solyndra. Taxpayers’ money funded bankruptcy. That wouldn’t happen under my administration.
I believe the best way to “fix” the economy is to allow the free market to operation with minimal regulation. Naturally, some regulation is needed to ensure an even playing field (i.e. antitrust laws and monopoly laws are some of the most important to date), but I believe an administration friendly to U.S. businesses is nothing if not helpful.
Church and the State
Laws preventing judges from posting the Ten Commandments in their courthouses are in direct violation of the First Amendment. That being said, laws preventing judges from posting quotes from the Koran in their courthouses are in direct violation as well.
Separation of church and state is important, but we must also be careful to avoid approaching this idea with overzealous energy. Too much separation ensures the violation of free speech, but not enough results in the propagation of one religion over another.
Naturally, there are many more issues that a president would need to think about and act upon. But these are typically the issues that determine who gets voted in. I think taking proactive steps to remove the government’s role in individual lives is best since it is inherently inefficient, and that moving more toward a capitalistic free market that allows success and failure (i.e. no Wall Street bailouts) is the best way to create a level playing field for all Americans.
My core value is freedom, which all Americans deserve, whether they truly understand what it is or not.