Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Reason Magazine: Matt Welch Interviewing Edward Stringham- 'Policing is Too Important To Be Left For Government'

Source: Reason Magazine-
Source: Reason Magazine: Matt Welch Interviewing Edward Bringham- 'Policing is Too Important To Be Left To Government'

I'm just about to lay out why I'm not a Libertarian, even though I've been classified as a Libertarian over and over. Here's an example of where libertarianism can go too far. If you look at what government is supposed to do, defend, protect and to serve, and look after the general welfare of its people, which is very general. And generally speaking government does a pretty good job of this, except for the Welfare part. Where they've made their job even harder and the people who are dependent lives even worse. Just look at our poverty rates.

But then look at what's the role of the private sector. Be profitable, make as much money as they can, beat the competition, etc. That doesn't fit in very well with defend and protect. Because protecting and defending and serving costs a lot of money, that means investing resources. Resources that a private law enforcement Agency aren't going to want to invest. Because its going to hurt their bottom line the thing they concentrate on most. Which means as a result the security of their customers get hurt as a result.

I'm all in favor of private detective and security agency's, as well as private bounty hunting agency's. Just as long as they are not the only game in town, that we have a balance between the public and private sectors. To keep a check on the other to make sure that they don't go too far. Thats one of the things thats worked well in our economy historically. Privatizing police department's and eliminating public police department's and law enforcement agency's, is one example of why Libertarians get stereotyped not only as anti-government but anarchist as well. And why they haven't moved very far in American politics and don't have a major political party.

Not even Libertarians like Ron Paul and Milt Friedman, are anti-public law enforcement. They realize that there's a need on what government has to do, to make sure those things get done. And that people's security shouldn't be judged based on how much money they make. Which is what would happen if public law enforcement were privatized. Because how would low-income people finance their law enforcement, when they are already struggling just to meet their everyday needs, grocery's, housing, Healthcare etc.

how would low-income people buy their own weapons? How they supposed to fiance that, what if they don't know how to use them safely. Pay for weapon training, how are they supposed to pay for that. Libertarians generally speaking aren't in favor of public social insurance paid for by tax revenue. There so many things that Libertarians haven't thought through or don't care about who support these ideas, if they are really that anti-government, instead of being pro-limited government. Which is what I am as a Liberal Democrat. If this is the case hen maybe America is not the right country for Libertarians and libertarian is not the right political label for them. And maybe they should consider moving to Somalia or Afghanistan. Thats what countries look like that don't govern themselves.

What's government supposed to do? Protect, defend and look after the General Welfare of their people. And I would argue again as a Liberal, that the welfare aspect is more limited than protect and defend. People who can't have to have incentive to take care of themselves or they won't. And protect and defend are areas that shouldn't be left up to who can make the most money. But who'll provide the best service and the people who can do this are the people who don't have to worry about profits but providing the best service that they can.