This is where a lot of compromise has to come into play. Let's face it, we like our amenities (I'm watching a very upper-class episode of House Hunters as I write this). So. What does the Practical Libertarian think are important government expenditures? Here are the major expenditures our government makes.
*Social Security for the elderly--let's face it, this was the best idea ever. It was supposed to be a self-sustaining program meant to make sure that the elderly could afford to retire (and let younger workers take their place in the workforce). So that's what we need to strive for again. I think that with money we can save on some other things, we coul get the Social Security and Medicare funds to where they belong so that it's sustainable once again.
*Welfare. Well, I know that this is a touchy subject, but it's something that we need to work on. This includes everything directed towards the poor (food stamps, medicaid, rent assistance, etc). Honestly, these services should be cared for by the private sector. And here's where you run over to the article on taxes to see how I believe that we need to use taxes now to encourage those who can afford to to donate to the programs which cover these issues. I think that the private sector can spend the time and effort to really help people while the government tends to get spread too thin. So, we need to not cut funding, but shift funding to the private sector. We can save money by removing the government officials in this area and let them be hired by private non-profits.
*Military. We need to have a strong military, and can't be isolationist, but we can't spend 50% of taxes on guns and ammunition. So we need to really look at what we're spending on the military and see if it's really necessary.
*Health Care Ideally, government shouldn't be paying for individual's health care. Because, everyone should have health insurance. I know, I know. I'm breaking some kind of Libertarian code when I say that we need to mandate health insurance, but the alternative, which I also support, is that if you don't YOU. WILL. DIE. I mean, you're going to die anyway (it's a sexually transmitted, 100% fatal disease), but do you want to die from something that a trip to the doctor early would have given you a decade or two more years of life? We can't allow people to spend their lives not paying for insurance and then waltzing into a hospital demanding treatment because they can. It's stupid to think that no one is paying for the treatment--your insurance premiums and your taxes already are. Money that could be used to keep schools open and keep Social Security solvent. It is, however, government's job to ensure that anyone who wants health insurance can get it, though they should have it from birth since the problem with banishing pre-existing condition clauses is that people will wait until they're ill to get insurance.
The law should be that there is some kind of basic insurance available for those who can't afford anything else. All children are given coverage until age 26 and then the Practical Libertarian says the individual is given a choice, start paying for insurance or lose the option. I think that with these mandates in place the insurance companies can go back to the status quo of today about pre-existing conditions since I'm sure there will be plenty of 30 year olds who for-went their insurance options and who want coverage later in life. Or no. Maybe not since then nothing really would have changed. Yes, I think the "have coverage or die" option would be best. **Unless you can afford un-insured health care, of course. But then I'd expect the hospitals would want proof of payment before they opperate.
*Investments in the Private Sector This is quite debatable. But again, it's dependent on the ability of the wealthy to spend their money on things that benefit everyone and not just themselves. It is the job of government to be pro-active, not re-active. Capitalsm is generally re-active--you didn't see fuel efficient cars start to sell en masse until the price of gas quintupled. There isn't investment until there's a market unless a market can be made and so long as there is oil available, there's not a market for electric cars (hence the reason why they were driven out of business back in the 1930s).
*Education The Practical Libertarian thinks that education is the responsibility of the masses. However, we are all part of the same country and we should have the same standards independent of the state we live in. The Department of Education should exist to set a national curriculum and a national test to make sure that students are meeting that standard. The states can then expand the curriculum to include whatever they want above and beyond the national standards. The goal isn't to mandate the education that children recieve...it's to ensure that students in NC are learning about the same Civil War as the students in PA--I have a cousin who thought Bull Run and Manassas weren't just different battles, but part of different wars back in the '90s when he changed schools. The standards should also be increased every few years since it would be a crime to leave our children in a static education system...a crime we've been forcing on them for years.
All public schools should be publically funded and donations be tax deductible. Ideally the goal would be for the private sector to fund public schools, though a system would be necessary to ensure that poor areas' schools aren't neglected. I should think that state governments could handle this, though beware situations like that in Virginia where NOVA tried to pass a law that school funding would be dependent on the amount the city paid in property taxes.
*Social Security for the elderly--let's face it, this was the best idea ever. It was supposed to be a self-sustaining program meant to make sure that the elderly could afford to retire (and let younger workers take their place in the workforce). So that's what we need to strive for again. I think that with money we can save on some other things, we coul get the Social Security and Medicare funds to where they belong so that it's sustainable once again.
*Welfare. Well, I know that this is a touchy subject, but it's something that we need to work on. This includes everything directed towards the poor (food stamps, medicaid, rent assistance, etc). Honestly, these services should be cared for by the private sector. And here's where you run over to the article on taxes to see how I believe that we need to use taxes now to encourage those who can afford to to donate to the programs which cover these issues. I think that the private sector can spend the time and effort to really help people while the government tends to get spread too thin. So, we need to not cut funding, but shift funding to the private sector. We can save money by removing the government officials in this area and let them be hired by private non-profits.
*Military. We need to have a strong military, and can't be isolationist, but we can't spend 50% of taxes on guns and ammunition. So we need to really look at what we're spending on the military and see if it's really necessary.
*Health Care Ideally, government shouldn't be paying for individual's health care. Because, everyone should have health insurance. I know, I know. I'm breaking some kind of Libertarian code when I say that we need to mandate health insurance, but the alternative, which I also support, is that if you don't YOU. WILL. DIE. I mean, you're going to die anyway (it's a sexually transmitted, 100% fatal disease), but do you want to die from something that a trip to the doctor early would have given you a decade or two more years of life? We can't allow people to spend their lives not paying for insurance and then waltzing into a hospital demanding treatment because they can. It's stupid to think that no one is paying for the treatment--your insurance premiums and your taxes already are. Money that could be used to keep schools open and keep Social Security solvent. It is, however, government's job to ensure that anyone who wants health insurance can get it, though they should have it from birth since the problem with banishing pre-existing condition clauses is that people will wait until they're ill to get insurance.
The law should be that there is some kind of basic insurance available for those who can't afford anything else. All children are given coverage until age 26 and then the Practical Libertarian says the individual is given a choice, start paying for insurance or lose the option. I think that with these mandates in place the insurance companies can go back to the status quo of today about pre-existing conditions since I'm sure there will be plenty of 30 year olds who for-went their insurance options and who want coverage later in life. Or no. Maybe not since then nothing really would have changed. Yes, I think the "have coverage or die" option would be best. **Unless you can afford un-insured health care, of course. But then I'd expect the hospitals would want proof of payment before they opperate.
*Investments in the Private Sector This is quite debatable. But again, it's dependent on the ability of the wealthy to spend their money on things that benefit everyone and not just themselves. It is the job of government to be pro-active, not re-active. Capitalsm is generally re-active--you didn't see fuel efficient cars start to sell en masse until the price of gas quintupled. There isn't investment until there's a market unless a market can be made and so long as there is oil available, there's not a market for electric cars (hence the reason why they were driven out of business back in the 1930s).
*Education The Practical Libertarian thinks that education is the responsibility of the masses. However, we are all part of the same country and we should have the same standards independent of the state we live in. The Department of Education should exist to set a national curriculum and a national test to make sure that students are meeting that standard. The states can then expand the curriculum to include whatever they want above and beyond the national standards. The goal isn't to mandate the education that children recieve...it's to ensure that students in NC are learning about the same Civil War as the students in PA--I have a cousin who thought Bull Run and Manassas weren't just different battles, but part of different wars back in the '90s when he changed schools. The standards should also be increased every few years since it would be a crime to leave our children in a static education system...a crime we've been forcing on them for years.
All public schools should be publically funded and donations be tax deductible. Ideally the goal would be for the private sector to fund public schools, though a system would be necessary to ensure that poor areas' schools aren't neglected. I should think that state governments could handle this, though beware situations like that in Virginia where NOVA tried to pass a law that school funding would be dependent on the amount the city paid in property taxes.
No comments:
Post a Comment