This post could be a little lengthy, but as I have said before, "caveat lector" (reader beware).
First on my list is the war on drugs. Despite whole-heartedly opposing the use of drugs, I do not believe that the Federal Government has any power to prohibit citizens from voluntarily taking chemicals that harm only them (directly). If they have this power, there is essentially no limit to the amount of interference that the government can have in our lives. If they can't regulate health care through Obamacare (and they cannot), then the Feds cannot regulate drugs either. Of course, the Feds could place tariffs on drugs or handle international trade issues with more power, but that does not give them power to make criminal laws for possession or sale of the same.
Additionally, there are many people who argue that the war is an unwinnable one and thus should not be fought. I may be willing to vote for state criminal laws on some of the more dangerous drugs (meth, for example), but I would tend to allow marijuana legal (or at least severely lower the criminally penalties). The states would have the power to try different drug laws and could each make their own decisions. States were the building blocks of this country and should remain so today.
2. Smoking Bans
As I have said before, I do not believe smoking is good for us, but neither are fatty food, television, or caffeine. Yet, despite the negative effects of these things, they are not prohibited. I have no problems with those who own property setting laws regarding smoking (for example, I may make rules that prohibit smoking in my home or my business), but I am opposed to others making laws for what is permitted on my property. These laws are typically applied to bars and restaurants and justified by concern for the health of workers and other guests. Yet, nobody has the right to work in or visit my business; if they do not like that the customers or co-workers smoke, they can go work somewhere else. Waitresses, waiters, and customers do not have to work or eat somewhere and they can go to restaurants that prohibit smoking. Those who want to smoke can go to those restaurants that permit it.
As for public property, the citizens or legislature (as owners) can democratically vote on these issues and I will gladly support these. But I draw the line (even though I personally like the line) at such rules about smoking on private property.
3. Federal Marriage Law
As a personal moral view, I oppose gay marriage, but I believe that marriage definitions are a matter for the states. If a state wants to allow gay marriage, so be it. If another state does not, so be it. There is no need for the federal government to define marriage, even for tax laws. They should accept the definition provided by the states and provide tax benefits accordingly.
4. Military Adventurism
While I do not hate former President Bush, I do not support the war in Iraq. I supported the initial invasion into Afghanistan, but think we should be out. I also am opposed to most of the stationing of troops around the world. We are not the policemen of the world and every other country can protect and defend themselves. Our military's purpose is the defense of our country and should focus on that purpose. Where US interests are harmed, we may need to act, but those instances are not so broad as some people would think.
The people who make decisions about military action (not mission details, but the decision to deploy) are the same government officials who screw up economics, politics, and other matters in the country. They don't become efficient and effective when the military comes into play.
5. The War on Terror
I recognize that there are truly people who want to harm us out there and that many of these are what we might call "terrorists" (many are not). Where we can, I think that we need to take action to protect our interests. Nevertheless, the whole goal of terrorism is to cause terror. There are many who say that if we do not go fight the terrorists and stop them, they are winning. I would say that if we overreact and are paranoid about a future terrorist attack, the terrorists are winning. The TSA (an unconstitutional federal agency) serves no purpose; neither do the extensive security measures taken there. A terrorist could set off a bomb at a movie theatre, mall, bus, train, church, etc. and kill just as many people as a bomb on an airplane. There is no need to panic about airplanes. The fact is that we face danger in our lives everyday. Cars crash, diseases spawn, crimes occur. We go through our lives aware of these dangers and we can fly aware of them as well.
6. International Relations
I am not the type of person who always defends or always criticizes America with regards to foreign countries, but I think that we ought to re-think our foreign, international strategy. As I said before, we ought to start by getting rid of all of our foreign military bases. Every time that we provide defense for another nation, we basically perpetuate socialism. When European countries don't have to provide defense, they spend more on things like socialized medicine and other such issues. Why should we be taxed and spend our money on their defense? Simple: we should not.
In addition to money, there is also the matter of our image in these countries. Take the Islamic world, for example. Many Muslims tend to view us as imperialists. However unjust their accusations, we do nothing to stem the tide of these accusations when we permanently place soldiers in their countries. If another country does not want us there, we should definitely not spend our money to stay there. Finally, how would Americans act if other countries placed their soldiers in our country? Why should we expect other countries to feel any differently?
7. Military/Police/Fire Pay
Most Republicans believe that government workers make too much money and that most of what government does, it should not do. While I whole-heartedly agree with this, I think that Republicans often confuse these two important issues. Let me explain. The government should not have created the TSA. It is a waste of money. Additionally, they are almost guaranteed to be overpayed. The military, on the other hand, is a proper function of government. This does not mean that those in the military cannot be over-payed.
Most Republicans believe that because fire, police, and military are proper functions of state, local, and/or federal government, they should be honored and respected. Agreed. But, how are we to determine pay for them? Let me pose a hypothetical. Imagine that you need your lawn mowed. How will you determine how much to pay the mower? You will balance supply and demand (labor prices operate just like other goods). If Johnny will do it for $2, but do a poor job and Andy will do it for $20 and do an immaculate job, you will determine what level of lawn care you "demand." If Susie will do an adequate job for $10, you will probably hire her. Why? You will not pay Andy if Susie is available.
Now, taking that example, how much should we pay military, fire, and police officers? Simple, as much as it takes to acquire an adequate fighting force, police force, and fire department. Let me use the military to further evaluate this. For the most part, we need a certain number of soldiers. We should pay the military as much as it takes to get enough qualified people to fill those positions. If we could fill the ranks of the Army by paying $2/day and feeding/sheltering them, that would suffice (provided that they are qualified). We should not pay them $40,000 a year if they will work for $2,000 a year. If we are paying too low, we will not have enough soldiers. Then, we raise the wages to get enough people to sign up. If we are paying too high and have to turn people away, we should lower the wages until we do not have excess "supply." Wages are market oriented and I do not want to hear anyone talking about how much soldiers, firefighters, or policeman "deserve."
Two additional points should be made. First of all, people inevitably point out that soldiers risk their lives, thus implying that we ought to pay them more for that. Does anyone really believe that prospective soldiers do not consider dying when they sign up? They do and so they also weigh the probability of that happening. I do not want to die in battle and thus do not want to enter the military as a combat-ready troop. We do not need to pay them more because that is part of the analysis prospective soldiers already make.
Secondly, NOBODY deserves the type of retirement that military, fire, police, teachers, and other government officials earn. "Defined benefit packages" should be abolished absolutely with government. There is no reason to believe that military members, policemen, and firefighters cannot maintain a 401(k) retirement plan like pretty much everyone else in the private sector. Unless people believe that these groups are too stupid, which view is far more offensive then forcing them to save their own money for retirement.
8. Civil Rights and Police
Many Republicans also tend to be die-hard defenders of coming down hard on criminals, whatever it takes. I have heard (and said myself, in the past), that people don't mind if the police search them or their vehicle because they know that they are innocent. I vehemently disagree. I don't want the government (including the police) in my life, even if I am innocent. I don't want the police searching my vehicle without a warrant (or at least probable cause). I don't want to be harassed by police, I don't want to be subject to pat-downs, and I do not want to be stopped at a drunk driving stop, even though I never drink. The whole purpose of the Constitution (state and federal) is to protect our rights from being infringed upon by the government, including the police. Hence, unless you have probable cause to believe I committed a crime, leave me alone.
Just some food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment