Jim Hlavac
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Economic Theory
| Economic Theory |
Here's just a few examples: The Congress can say that it is the
national policy that all states should spend no less than 1% of their
budgets on public art in public buildings.
Or that the national policy is all states must spend no less than
2.5% of their budgets on a park system. And there can be broad
definitions of what are parks, from wilderness areas to city parks.
You could even have a national policy that says minimally 10% of
state's territory must be set aside as an untrodden wilderness and that
another 10% would have to be limited access wilderness.
The federal government should collect the statistics and
information that all localities must use to determine their local
version of the broad national policy.
The Congress can say that all physically disabled people -- those
missing limbs, mentally retarded, comatose, paralyzed. These sorts
of catastrophic medical things should be covered b some sort of
national insurance program that only the most heartless would argue
should get some sort of special consideration. We able bodied
people really have no idea what the problems truly handicapped
people face. We need to do more than put up ramps and install
larger bathrooms.
Those are good things, which actually help all of us, whether we
realize it or not. Things like less falls by the elderly walking up
stairs, because they use the ramps made for wheels chairs. Yet I
hear these elderly apologize for using the ramp because "I'm not
handicapped." Well, you're differently abled, OK? So go ahead and
use the ramp you paid for.
On the other hand, a person born with Downs Syndrome is
always going to be at a disadvantage. Why should that family have
to go through the difficulties alone? Isn't that what a compassionate
people should attend to? That family is going to have expenses far
beyond what any other family would ever have. And no family
knows when they are going to have such a special child. So if
everyone pays into an insurance pool we can make sure that these
people are taken care of. It would be quasi-governmental -- in that
the government would require everyone to pay -- it would be a tax
-- but for a specific purpose. Those moneys collected would only be
deposited into accounts to deal with this specific issue. The money
would be dedicated.
And this sort of budgeting is actually better from a liberty
standpoint because the people would know that there money is going
towards a reasonable social good.
The atomistic libertarianism that critics always bring up, and
some of the more radical theorists, is not really what I think most
libertarian leaning people believe. Instead we find ourselves looking
for practical methods of dealing with real problems and the reality of
human nature and the differences in intelligence and human ability
spread around the nation. We can not ignore reality for the sake of
philosophy or theory. When ever we think that theory should
override the reality we should remember the bumble bee -- a small
creature which theory says mathematically can not fly as we watch it
buzz through the garden.
national policy that all states should spend no less than 1% of their
budgets on public art in public buildings.
Or that the national policy is all states must spend no less than
2.5% of their budgets on a park system. And there can be broad
definitions of what are parks, from wilderness areas to city parks.
You could even have a national policy that says minimally 10% of
state's territory must be set aside as an untrodden wilderness and that
another 10% would have to be limited access wilderness.
The federal government should collect the statistics and
information that all localities must use to determine their local
version of the broad national policy.
The Congress can say that all physically disabled people -- those
missing limbs, mentally retarded, comatose, paralyzed. These sorts
of catastrophic medical things should be covered b some sort of
national insurance program that only the most heartless would argue
should get some sort of special consideration. We able bodied
people really have no idea what the problems truly handicapped
people face. We need to do more than put up ramps and install
larger bathrooms.
Those are good things, which actually help all of us, whether we
realize it or not. Things like less falls by the elderly walking up
stairs, because they use the ramps made for wheels chairs. Yet I
hear these elderly apologize for using the ramp because "I'm not
handicapped." Well, you're differently abled, OK? So go ahead and
use the ramp you paid for.
On the other hand, a person born with Downs Syndrome is
always going to be at a disadvantage. Why should that family have
to go through the difficulties alone? Isn't that what a compassionate
people should attend to? That family is going to have expenses far
beyond what any other family would ever have. And no family
knows when they are going to have such a special child. So if
everyone pays into an insurance pool we can make sure that these
people are taken care of. It would be quasi-governmental -- in that
the government would require everyone to pay -- it would be a tax
-- but for a specific purpose. Those moneys collected would only be
deposited into accounts to deal with this specific issue. The money
would be dedicated.
And this sort of budgeting is actually better from a liberty
standpoint because the people would know that there money is going
towards a reasonable social good.
The atomistic libertarianism that critics always bring up, and
some of the more radical theorists, is not really what I think most
libertarian leaning people believe. Instead we find ourselves looking
for practical methods of dealing with real problems and the reality of
human nature and the differences in intelligence and human ability
spread around the nation. We can not ignore reality for the sake of
philosophy or theory. When ever we think that theory should
override the reality we should remember the bumble bee -- a small
creature which theory says mathematically can not fly as we watch it
buzz through the garden.