Libertarians Vs. Conservatives

Socially, Libertarians are decent folk. While they lack actual human empathy, their rigid set of personal beliefs emulates the sensitivity of a truly concerned citizen. Fiscally, that same set of rigid beliefs is a recipe for disaster, and their ability to trick gullible liberals into softening their stance on regulation has reaped benefits for very few, and chaos for the rest.

 

Government regulation is NOT the solution, it is the problem.

Government policy prodded regulated lending institution to lend money in the form of FHA ready mortgages.
These lending institutions regulated to as they are had no skin in the game to determine the value of the property or the worthiness of the mortgagee. The mortgages were FHA ready and therefore marketable by policy and regulation. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were the principal movers of this disastrous plan. This coupled with the unwise deregulation of eliminating Glass–Steagall regulation, leaving commercial banks to be commingled with investment banks which dabble in the worthless securities created from worthless mortgages created by regulation, while being protected by FDIC regulation
A total fucking prescription for disaster. And the shit did indeed hit the fan.

 

Didn't you say you thought the gov't should put more responsibility on fathers. That would be gov't regulation . ..

 

Where did I say this? It must have been a typo.
I did say Society needs to put the burden on dad. That was the prime motive in creating the institution of marriage. Many good things are done by human society, not many by government.
Well on the other hand, perhaps I did not say it, just alluded to the idea.

 

I will propose a change in the law to help with the issue of young guys shooting people.
I think it is a sensible change and should not conflict in anyway with the Constitution.

When any person is unlawfully harmed by a minor, the father of the minor, or the legal guardian if the father is deceased, shall be held accountable as if he personally cause the harm. Unless the minor is 15 or more years old, in which case the court will determine whether the father or the minor, or both are to be held accountable for the harm.

Fathers can not abandon nor divorce themselves from this responsibility unless another guardian legally assumes responsibly for the actions of the minor.

If you shoot your gun, you shall be responsible for the result, any gun period.


Perhaps fathers may need a little help from society and the law in dealing with a child with mental problems, no doubt he and mothers do now.

Sound familiar . . .

 

Oh well, I stand by that completely. All Societies rely on government at some level to enforce the rules and laws of the society, as well as grant the privileged. and protect the rights of the members.

This function of government is hardly comparable the bazaar regulation of the Financial Business sector or the draconian non Representative regulation practiced by the EPA.

Holding the father responsible for his children has long been recognized in Natural law and the Law of Nations. It seem to be only missing our current free society. Citizens free to be untethered and allow to bring forth feral children while the government muddles in business as never imagined let alone authorized by the governed.

A few excerpts from the Law of Nation to give you the idea.

"If a person is capable of rearing a family, let him marry, let him be attentive to give his
children a good education: — in so doing, he will discharge his duty, and be undoubtedly in the road to salvation."

"As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it."

(It seem the US has found a way around needing children. Just have the President promise citizenship to all those that come from where ever.)

" The right to use force.
This right is a perfect one, — that is to say, it is accompanied with the right of using force in order to assert it. In vain would nature give us a right to refuse submitting to injustice, — in vain would she oblige others to be just in their dealings with us, if we could not lawfully make use of force, when they refused to discharge this duty. The just would lie at the mercy of avarice and injustice, and all their rights would soon become useless."

It should be obvious to all that there are far to many feral young men left to their own council, free to tramp the rights, including the right to Life of far too many of our countrymen and their children. Blaming the mindless firearm for this atrocious behavior is clueless, the fathers of these
misbegotten feral soul must be held accountable. The courts can do the accounting, but society must teach the duty and demand the behavior.


So the precedent is long standing support enforcing the rule that fathers are responsible for their children and all citizens have reason to expect their government to enforce the rule.

 

So there are times gov't regulation is a solution . . . which I think goes against Libertarians views.

 

Well I see a large difference here, perhaps you don't.
Enforcing the rules and law of society is precisely authorized in the Constitution.
While Congress created the bazaar banking regulation that got us into deep do doo, I am not at all sure they have not stepped out of bounds.
Where the EPA is concerned these day, I think they are way out of bounds with no authorization at all in the Constitution.

 

So enforcing rules and laws of society when it comes to lightbulbs is authorized by the constitution.

 

Perhaps you're catching on.