cheese, wine & robots

The way this is stated is a little one-sided, Sam. It's not necessarily that these five items are good/bad. They are neutrally stated, and I think most people hear them and think of their "ideal" situation. The crisis comes when the mission statement of the administration or department is based around principals that don't match what "the people want." I don't think it's enough that these five areas be addressed; I also care very much HOW they are addressed. A mission statement should clearly state the way these rules will be interpreted and should be stuck to through thick and thin or changed if it's no longer considered logically to operate under that interpretation.

Let's take number one on this list as an example. "Protect our Nation from Dangerous People." Dangerous People could be defined as those who have proven they will physically harm our country and our people in ways that considerably disrupt our way of life (read: our bill of rights and particularly UN-stated world-wide human rights). I'd say that Bin Laden & henchmen killing thousands of people in 2001 would qualify as a Dangerous Person to our country. Even in this situation, however, there are still options in the handling of the situation, again based on the department's mission statement. Dealing with a Dangerous Person could involve peace talks, negotiations, trials, invasions... the list goes on, but it all depends on the style of the department.

They "style" of the department is not clearly stated in this list. Unfortunately, the DHS currently practices habits that violate it's own citizens' basic rights. My personal opinion is that the DHS is a group of Dangerous People. Bush has stated it before and they practice it: the belief is that we should give up some of our rights to them in order to protect us from not yet identified Dangerous People who may possibly want to and even try to violate our rights. NO THANK YOU.

The long and short of it is that I think many people would agree that the five "areas of focus" stated above are important for the continued well-being of the country in which we live. I'm pretty sure the argument is more about the way in which these focuses are practiced. And frankly, with the current administration I don't feel like I have much of a say in it.

Back to the libertarian idea, local governments do provide citizens more opportunity to "have a say" in the way things are handled. From more face to face time with your reps to the idea that if you don't like your state's laws, you can move. Our Federal government is far from being so accessible. And let's all be honest, "executive privilege" is a giant crock that flagrantly violates the branch separation of our government, which was set up to help protect us from over powerful government officials.

What are we doing about it?

TFYQA

P.S. I agree that we have yet to see a concrete statement from the libertarian party suggesting how to transition from centralized to local governance. At the same time, I think that is part of the point. The power is in your hands and you're probably doing to flub it a bit along the way, but ultimately you make the transition happen for yourselves. Scary and empowering!

Indeed, the stated goals of the DHS are things most of us can agree on. Really, I just think that with the exception of the INS and a few others, most of the agencies that were consolidated into the DHS should have been rolled into the Department of Defense. We would then have one single strong entity to secure the nation. Also, the NSA seems redundant. Any needs not fulfilled by the CIA could be taken care of by the DoD.

I agree that the Libertarian Party, or anyone else for that matter, needs to do a better job of educating voters on the problems with the current state of things and the benefits of viable alternatives. While I personally can't provide full roadmaps to alternatives, I can go into more detail about the issues I have with the current state of affairs.

Foreign Policy: I'd like to see all foreign military actions occur in cooperation with the UN. I have a hard time conceptualizing a situation where we would need to wage an offensive war that the rest of the civilized world did not agree with. I also find it hard to believe that there is any reason for a $14,000,000,000,000 economy to wage war with its military.

Taxes: The repeal of the 16th amendment is a huge deal for me. A direct income tax requires that your government owns you. I firmly believe that all people should keep 100% of the compensation they earn for their labor and only be taxed on the services they use. I think something like the Fair Tax is the best alternative we have.

Education: Should be funded and otherwise controlled entirely locally. I think that everyone should have direct access to the planning of their child's curriculum and the spending of education funds.

Healthcare: Should be primarily taken care of by a free market. Any government healthcare system should be decided at a state or local level.

The War on Drugs: I think it should be illegal to buy, sell, or produce illegal drugs, but not illegal to possess in quantities consistent with personal use. I also believe that the legalization of certain drugs would deal an unrecoverable blow to organized crime. By making drugs illegal we do little to change the demand for a product while decreasing it's supply. You do the math. Marijuana for example, should be legal. I have never heard a sound argument supporting the illegality of marijuana. If you have one, I'd love to hear it. Drug Laws should be decided at the state or local level.

It's 2AM, I'm going to bed.