A Libertarian's View on the Issues

In our judicial system we would rather let 100 guilty men go free rather than convict 1 innocent man, that is why you hear "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" because if there is a reasonable doubt that he might not be guilty, they declare him innocent. The key word here is suspect, could we forgive ourselves if we were openly torturing innocent people out of a pure suspicion? Is that America? I say no.

Is Global Warming real?

It very well could be, and it very well could be exaggerated. Yes there is alot of factual data indicating climate change, however, climate is and has always been changing and so far every doomsayer or end of the world nut that has ever opened his mouth has been wrong so far... And to prove it? We are still here.

From a libertarian persective however we can help better protect the environment by putting more emphasis on protecting the rights of private property owners. You have a right to not have your air that you own polluted by a factory down the street, so you and your neighbors therefore have a right to bargain with the factory owner and or go to court over it.

Should marijuana be legalized?

The role of government is to protect your life (from others), your liberties (to do as you please so long as you are not infringing upon anyone elses rights), and your property. It is not the role of government to protect us from ourselves. Besides, there are very negative consequences to the war on drugs. People with an addiction to drugs are going to get the drug regardless, whether it is to steal money, sell their body, etc. It also puts drug dealers on the streets and giving them a reason to pack weapons because it is illegal.

You also see many good college kids have their entire life ruined because they were caught smoking a joint. They weren't hurting anyone but themselves, however we decide that the damage they did to society by smoking that joint is equivilant the the damage we do to them by throwing them in jail. Yeah right, they're paying back their debt to society for smoking a joint? What damage did they do to me? So why should we make a lifelong criminal out of them by throwing them in the joint when they weren't hurting anyone and they actually had a promising future ahead of them before?

Should the current drinking age be lowered to 18 instead of 21?

Yes, and the reason being - The liberties of legal adults should not be able to be taken away by any one majority (in this case people 21+) over any one minority (people under 21). All liberties among legal voting citizens of the United States of America should be equal and fair.

This is the same reasoning as why white people should not be able to take away the rights of a minority just because they have differing views. Suppose one ethnicity is more biologically prone to addiction than an ethnicity that is in the majority, should the majority be able to change the drinking of from 21 to 25 for that ethnic minority because of that study? No, they shouldn't be able to do that.

Just because there is a significant difference between an 18 year old getting addicted to alcohol than someone at the age of 21 doesn't mean that people over the age of 21 need to protect the minority by taking away their liberties. If we are giving 18 year olds the responsibility to be an adult and vote, start a company, die for our country, then we need to give them the freedoms of being an adult. Either we give them the same freedoms, or we make the age of being an adult 21.

Should the next President implement a government-sponsored universal health care plan?

Absolutely not. What we need is to end government sponsored insurances that drive the price of healthcare up to unaffordable costs. Capitalism has always brought the luxaries of the rich down to the poor, lets allow it too and get government out of it. I usually compare it to Lasik eye surgery. Lasik eye surgery is considered optional and is not covered by insurance companies so the entire cost is given to the consumer. In the last 5 years alone we have seen technology improve and at the same time the procedure has gone from over 4000 dollars an eye to around 200 dollars per eye.

However, with government enforced insurance policies and regulations healthcare has been the only commodity in which technology has increased and the price hasnt come down. It sounds counter productive, but if we actually let the consumer bear the burden like any other commodity, healthcare costs will shrink down to affordable levels that everyone can afford, the same way chocolate was only eaten by kings before the institution of capitalism. But right now with all the government mandated insurance companies it is allowing healthcare to charge monopolistic prices that maximize profit for them at the expense of our consumer surplus.

Let's put competition back into healthcare and you will see prices fall so low that the poorest of the poor can afford it. If universal healthcare gets passed we are going to see many more of our liberties be challenged, such as smoking, eating the foods that we like etc. because the government will want to minimize costs and people won't want their tax money going towards helping a man who got lung cancer from smoking cigarettes or a person with heart disease from eating too many burgers. Keep it private, so each person is responsible for their own health.

Should the 'No Child Left Behind' act be changed?

The "No Child Left Behind" should be abolished along with the Federal Department of Education. The states can better handle the problems of education. A state knows its schools and its issues better than the beaurocrats in Washington. I however, being such a capitalist, would love to see some sort of voucher program to instill some competition into our education, but I am also a realist, and there are too many people that are ignorant of the beauty of vouchers that we will never be able to have them, even though the only children that are hurt by not allowing vouchers is poor children, rich kids can already afford private school.

What should the federal government do about same sex couples that want to be married?

Government should not regulate any marriage. Not straight marriages or gay marriages. A marriage is a religious institution and not that of the state. What the state CAN do is protect a contract. Once more one group of people should not be able to infringe on the liberties of another. The seperation of church affairs and state affairs is mandatory for the protection of liberty among its citizens.

What do you think about gun control?

If a 12 year old kid can find someone to buy cocaine from, a commodity which is federally banned all across the nation, I think a criminal will be able to find a gun easy enough. The only people you disarm with gun control is law abiding citizens. Criminals fear attacking someone who is packing a sidearm alot more than getting caught by the police. In switzerland every household has a gun, is it coincidence that their crime is alot lower than ours? No. The more gun control that is enacted upon our citizens the more safe criminals feel to rob anyone they want.