News Experiment: Favorite National Level Politician sans Rules

[Gokul43201]

For revenues, yes tariffs, excise taxes, fees for services, etc. Yes, get rid of many federal agencies, consolidating legitimate functions, including some of the functions of those you listed, like veterans benefits, nuclear safety, etc. A more detailed response would belong in a different thread.Government certainly didn't do much compared to what it does today, but that's not exactly a reasonable standard, considering how intrusive and powerful today's government is.

But that's not exactly going back to the amount of government that we had in the 19th Century. That's calling for something in between: a lot less government than we have now, but more than we had back then. That's answering a slightly different question than the one I asked you. I too would prefer to see less government influence than there is today, and more than there was a hundred years ago. The question was whether or not having the same state of Fed Government influence as then would actually work today.

But I agree that this is fairly off-topic to the basic theme of this thread. I'm starting a new thread to discuss some of this <see here>.

The U.S. federal government was instituted to protect our nation and our liberty, not restrict it to control society or achieve a social agenda.

I think that anyone could (almost reasonably) choose to agree with the above statement, irrespective of whether they were Libertarian or Socialist or RWA. Also, I think that anyone could just as easily argue that your statement is not true, and that establishing justice and insuring tranquility are most definitely duties that require the government to exert some amount of control over society and promote some kind of agenda.

 

[mugaliens]

Why am I doing this?... I'm curious as to whether the presence of restrictions beyond the PF norm is conducive to a different kind of thread, for better or worse.

You are definitely one intriguing individual!

 

[nismaratwork]

You are definitely one intriguing individual!

I would have gone for "downright odd", but I'll take it!

 

[Al68]

But that's not exactly going back to the amount of government that we had in the 19th Century. That's calling for something in between: a lot less government than we have now, but more than we had back then. That's answering a slightly different question than the one I asked you. I too would prefer to see less government influence than there is today, and more than there was a hundred years ago. The question was whether or not having the same state of Fed Government influence as then would actually work today.

No, that wasn't your question, it was:

And you believe that all the policies that helped US growth in the 19th century will work as well today?

"Same state of Fed gov't influence" is very different from "policies that helped US growth". Obviously, I don't advocate all U.S. policies of the 19th century.

 

[Al68]

Your vehemence seems to be in conflict with your actual beliefs... you recognize the freedom we have, so is it fear of the future that has you, or something I'm just not understanding?

I must assume the latter.

To me, in this, "...best of all possible worlds..." we're lucky to be where we are. The notion that we can return to a simpler time replete with liberty from the government in return for social slavery, is largely illusory in my view.

What are you talking about? I said nothing about "liberty from the government" or "social slavery".

The way you seem to want to proceed doesn't, in my view, yield positive resuls (for many reasons already stated in other threads, and here by Gokul).

Apparently, the way it seems to you that I "want to proceed" is very different from what I actually advocate. And I have repeated what I advocate far too many times to keep repeating it.

 

[Gokul43201]

No, that wasn't your question, it was:"Same state of Fed gov't influence" is very different from "policies that helped US growth". Obviously, I don't advocate all U.S. policies of the 19th century.

You're right: it's not the exact same question. I guess I interpreted my own question in the only manner I thought it would be meaningful, in the sense that the state of government is a matter of historical record and indisputable, whereas, any list of policies that "helped" is likely to be very highly subjective.

 

[Al68]

You're right: it's not the exact same question. I guess I interpreted my own question in the only manner I thought it would be meaningful, in the sense that the state of government is a matter of historical record and indisputable, whereas, any list of policies that "helped" is likely to be very highly subjective.

Yes, and the reason I made an issue of it is that the federal government is better in many ways today, and we have better protection of liberty in many respects, most notably the abolition of slavery, and many social issues beyond the scope of this thread.

The federal government has changed dramatically since the 19th century, for the better in some respects, and for the worse in some respects. I advocate "turning back the clock" for those policies that infringe on liberty, not those that protect it better than before.

 

[nismaratwork]

I must assume the latter.What are you talking about? I said nothing about "liberty from the government" or "social slavery".Apparently, the way it seems to you that I "want to proceed" is very different from what I actually advocate. And I have repeated what I advocate far too many times to keep repeating it.

I truly don't understand you, or your positions. You have no idea how much I'd love you to lay them out in detail, policy by policy so that I could understand. You're highly active here, but I feel as though we're always talking past each other, you know what I mean?

 

[Al68]

I truly don't understand you, or your positions. You have no idea how much I'd love you to lay them out in detail, policy by policy so that I could understand.

LOL. I don't think PF would allow a post that long (hundreds of pages).

Try these:
http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian"
http://www.cato.org/"
http://mises.org/"

I may not agree with every single position of every libertarian organization, but the main principles are shared.

Libertarianism is not something that can be explained in detail in this format, but plenty of info is available online. I have provided the above links, and others at various times in this forum, and could probably find more. And of course I can answer specific questions.

 

[nismaratwork]

LOL. I don't think PF would allow a post that long (hundreds of pages).

Try these:
http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian"
http://www.cato.org/"
http://mises.org/"

I may not agree with every single position of every libertarian organization, but the main principles are shared.

Libertarianism is not something that can be explained in detail in this format, but plenty of info is available online. I have provided the above links, and others at various times in this forum, and could probably find more. And of course I can answer specific questions.

That's fair enough... I have some reading to do, and thanks AL... I hope we can at some point talk to and not past each other (on these issues), although we seem to often have functional debates away from pure politics.