Forum Replies Created
Makes perfect sense. Thank you!
This may be too late, but I like the idea of abolishing any role the Federal Gov’t has in funding higher education.
Harms of the status quo:
1. high cost of tuition
2. poor students (meaning, the funding offered by the fed. gov’t encourages some people to go to college who shouldn’t be – not college material; as a result they eventually drop out and end up with a bunch of debt).
3. Violates property rights (fed. gov’t has no authority to take person A’s money and give it to person B)
4. Unconstitutional (no enumerated power granted to congress to fund higher education – or any education for that matter; now you’re going to have to be able to argue why following the constitution as ratified is a good thing)
1. less violation of property rights
2. one less abuse of the constitution and federalism
3. tuition costs will drop
4. non academic students will be more likely to pursue other avenues of achieving success other than college (trade school, tech school…) or start working or start own business…
hope some of this helps!March 9, 2016 at 5:58 pm in reply to: Why the Great Depression did not return following WWII #16221
Excellent! Thank you. Very helpful. One other thing. I understand the role of the ABC Theory as a major cause of the Great Depression, but what about Milton Friedman’s argument that the Fed. Res. made a mistake when it raised interest rates. Was that a mistake?
Thanks for your time.January 27, 2016 at 10:45 pm in reply to: Libertarian perspective on legalizing all drugs and DUI laws. #20410
Thanks Osgood and Rusty for your comments. They were very helpful.
Thanks for the work you did on addressing my question. It is much appreciated, as always.
If it helps, this is the textbook it came from:
Boorstin, Daniel J. and Brooks Mather Kelley. A History of The United States. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996.
Thanks for your incites and observations as well as the link.
I agree, That would be helpful!
So based on all the responses, it seems the answer to the question, “no slavery, no civil war?” is yes. If slavery did not exist then the Deep South would not have seceded and the North would not have claimed a need to preserve the Union. The purpose of the question was to gauge the importance of other issues for secession, such as the protective tariff, but since no other reason for secession by the Deep South was brought up I can assume any other reason was secondary.
Thanks for your response.
I would agree that a state does not have the authority to force people to personally fight in a war, but our military is voluntary so no problem there. However, your point that people are forced to pay for it is well taken, but Constitutionally the federal gov’t does have the authority to use tax dollars for war whether everyone likes it or not.
No preemptive attacks? Even if you know the person/country is in the act of striking? If someone were about to hit me, i don’t think it would be unethical for me to attack first; especially if I think there was no way I would be able to defend myself without preemptively striking.
War is messy, but I don’t think it’s that simple. In our hypothetical situation people are oppressed and killed if we do nothing and, if we do intervene, it is likely that some civilians will be accidentally killed. So isn’t the question which scenario has the least bad outcome? How to decide if intervening will be more just than not is another matter, but just the same, sometimes not doing anything would be worse.
Your points about taxation and inflation to pay for the war are also well taken.
So, what would be a just war fought by a state’s army and funded via taxation? Based on your previous response, i would guess none. But what if the U.S. was invaded?
Would Say’s Law be an appropriate response to Keynes’ argument for why unemployment occurs in the first place? Or would the Austrian Business Cycle Theory be a more effective response?
Excellent, thank you.
Thanks for the quick reply. Here is another question – if there is no civil government, then how are the laws that society is supposed to follow determined? Wouldn’t any body that determines the laws to govern society be “the” civil government? What I am trying to say is, isn’t it impossible not to have a government (even if you give it another name) since someone or some people must enforce laws and punish those who violate rights? If the nature of government is force, then wouldn’t whoever wields the force basically be the civil government? And where does a private agency get the authority to imprison people?
Do Libertarians who argue for anarchy – no state government – and claim there will be peace and order presuppose the inherent goodness of man?
Your 9th Amendment rights are violated when the government violates any right you have that is not listed. In order to know when your 9th Amendment rights are violated one needs to know what rights are. I would argue rights are the acceptable actions of an individual that do not infringe upon the equal rights of others. In other words, there can be no right to something that would require the violation of another’s rights. Our 9th Amendment rights are violated often.