I have a lot to say in response, but can't now, but for starters, there seems to be a theme in regards to the environment and government. I read something similar on the Badnarik website, like, "stop the EPA from allowing pollution."
I do undestand that we have federally alloted pollution, and I likewise understand that so many loopholes often exist, that the agency often becomes counter-productive. BUT, this can't simply be judged as a case of bureacracy fucking things up. It's a far more complicated matter than than, one involving business, government, private lobby groups, etc. etc.
Take the Clean Water Act, for example. Among other things, this legislation set a deadline for industries that polluted to clean up their acts. To my recollection, that deadline passed somewhere in the 1980s. We still have water ways that are polluted and unhealthy. So what's the problem, and what's the solution? Is the solution then to eliminate the EPA and just have "good faith" that private citizens, or better yet the polluters themselves, will be encouraged by the market to change their ways....? Sorry, not likely. We had that already, a time when we trusted business and government to come together to solve the nation's mutual problems, and it didn't always work out.
This administration, in particular, has done everything it can to slash environmental policy and set us back decades. Is that the answer? Will that protect the environment from the evil EPA, or would it perhaps be prudent rather to make the EPA more independent from the reigning administration, better financed, and more autonomous....?
This, in one case, is my problem with Libertarianism. It seems like a wonderful theory....in theory. I understand "following the Constitution..." and all that jazz, but the binding nature of that document often seems like a crutch for Libertarians. You mentioned some wonderful things about the Constitution, yet neglected to mention that one thing that makes it so wonderful is the fact that it's a living, breathing document. Madison wrote something not for his time, but for future times. Not everything is necessarily applicable to our times, but they don't have to be. It's an
ammendable document, one that can be changed by the people after thoughtful debate and scrutiny.
I feel like the typical Libertarian answer to tough questions is "well, I'll have to defer to the Constitution." That's fine, bt it's not necessarily the answer. I hold great admiration for most of the men who formulated and founded this country. However, we're here now, and we have, and will CONTINUE, to encounter things they could never have even dreamed of.
I'm trying really hard to not turn this into a debate over the New Deal, but let's be honest, that's what we're talking about here. We're sort of tap dancing around it, although you'd date all of our problems prior to that, somewhere around the passage of the income tax.....
We're talking about different perspectives on the role of government. Is it here to serve us, guide us, or control us. I feel that is the wrong frame for the debate. I am an ardent believer, to paraphrase FDR, that the government IS US. We need to find that private/public balance that allows us to use government wisely, and reign over it properly, so that it remains a reflection of us and not a master over us.
So, forgiving my tangent, I guess this is my issue with Libertarianism. I feel like the typical Libertarian can SEE the problem, perhaps better than most. But then it's almost as if they're bound by doctrine to blame government....right, the EPA is the reason water is polluted, the DOE is the reason our schools suck, the IRS is the reason people don't give to charity more, and on and on......
I think this creates excuses for the self-interested human being. See, I have a very conservative outlook on people......I don't trust us. I think we are remarkable beings, but we are flawed, and often selfish. I personally think it becomes necessary at times for the whole (ie. the government) to protect ourselves from the "ambitions" of the individual.