NeedToUseYou
Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005 From: None of your business Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou So, yeah, the federal government would be providing less benefits/hamperance(depending on viewpoint) but it would be up to the states if they want to offer a replacement to those services or not. I guess everything old is new again. Good ole Andy Jackson had the same idea. He destroyed the Bank of the United States and refused to support any sort of national infrastructure, arguing that this was the domain of the states. The result? The destruction of the Bank led to an immediate economic depression, followed by the infamous "Panic" cycles of depressions every few years. And of course, "states rights" led to...you guessed it--extreme sectionalism and the Civil War. That's the problem with Libertarians. They don't know our history. More than the central bank has happened since then, there was very little stock market oversite, virtual monopolies were all the rage, Blatant market manipulation, etc.... I think many people attribute most of the good things that have happened to the fed, when they don't really deserve the credit. Didn't the great depression happen under the fed? Didn't the out of control inflation of the seventies happen under the fed, didn't the tech bubble crash under the fed(began pre-9-11 by the way, look at the stock charts). And aren't we completely and totally in debt to the point we have to prop up the dollar at gun point? Hasn't the real buying power of the american citizens decreased decade on top of decade. I'm not impressed... You seem to assume that other regulations would go poof, many of which are good and necessary, in my view. I don't believe in monopolies or stock manipulation, or monetary manipulation. Even if Ron Paul was elected for 8 years he wouldn't be able to dismantle more than the FED, and maybe the IRS. He just wouldn't have time to do much more than that in my opinion.
|