breast imaging society

My [unorganized and bitter] thoughts on Libertarianism.

Why is the notion of a bigger government so daunting? It seems as though all of these libertarians have forgotten that federalists helped in the establishment as well. So many people want to hide behind this idea that all of the forefathers favored a small federal government and a complete noninterventions foreign policy.

Not true. There existed federalists as well. In fact, the Constitution is, arguably, a Federalist creation. After the state government inspired Article of Confederation failed (miserably), our forefathers met in Philadelphia to discuss and create a more stable government. From this came the Constitution.

First in regards to this: the states were not reliable or responsible with their governments. The states became aggressive toward one another, and began trading with other nations, not states, almost immediately. The Congress of the Confederacy could not tax, therefore the country had no money. Also, the outrageously different laws varying from state to state created a mass of confusion and, eventually, aggression. When the new government was applied things worked much more effectively.

These ideas are familiar. To me, these seem perfectly consistent with the trendy libertarian.
The government that those who supported the articles wanted was one that did not have the ability to tax, had no federal government, and had complete sovereignty within the states.

BUT THIS DID NOT WORK.

This is my dread;my toil. I am constantly chastised for being so painfully liberal, but can you blame me?

History has shown that the presidencies that chose the more state-oriented philosophy have failed tragically. History has shown that anything that becomes too big must be subject to oversight, or it is doomed to fail. History has shown that the American people are clumsy and reckless, and cannot be left up to their own devices.
History has shown that allowing the rich to simply accumulate more wealth and the destitute to lose more only creates problems in the United States. (Ask me about how it started the great depression(s))
History has shown that without expanding the government, the country is doomed to fail.

I am not by any means saying we need a communist state. I am simply saying that the government must be allowed to change with the times. I appreciate how libertarians fear the notion of "SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE" but our Scandanavian brothers have had it for quite a long time, and they seem to be doing fine(Wiki Norway, I dare you.). Look at how France is doing, and look at there health care system.

Yes. We are the only industrialized nation that does not provide health care to all itapos;s people. But we wouldnapos;t want to hurt the doctor now would we? A profession that has become the art of pumping chemical stew into people for absurd amounts of money.
The art of writing prescriptions and prolonging treatment.
The art of convincing people they will become more unhealthy if they do not return in x days.
It is, to me, the most horrific exploitation this country has seen in a long while, and to say the industry should not be overseen is absurdity. The notion that the government should not be able to assist one in acquiring proper treatment is horrific.

And in the other countries the doctors still make a hefty living.

And what about Wall Street? No, letapos;s not allow the government to stick their noses in our business Laissez-faire and what have you. We asked years ago to oversee, and perhaps.....PERHAPS do a bit of regulating. But no. The big scary government causes too many problems.

Not as many as the citizen.

Wall Street crashed.....again. Just like several Senators (Oneapos;s running for President....Guess who) said it would. Perhaps the government would have been able to help? The Laissez-faire philosophy when applied to the market has only done bad things and beckoned mischief. It allows the citizen to do whatever they want. To exploit whatever they want.

I really need to wrap this up.

So I will only type a bit more. Let us talk about social services and the Bureaucracy. I know them Libsapos; just get fired up about the Bureaucracy. The Bureaucracy and all of itapos;s irresponsible spending. After all, the administrations that most used the Bureaucracy and social services failed.

No, they flourished.

Take a look at the economy under Regan, Nixon, Hoover, Team Bush, Coolidge. All of these men believed in a fiscal policy that is most consistent with the Libertarian philosophy. Hear me out. I am not saying that any Libertarians buy into this nonsense; many of the Libertarians I know are quite smart. It is most consistent in that the fiscal policy was more capitalistic, or gave more to those who "contribute" more. But when the government gives more back to the destitute everybody shits a brick. Or when the government decides to create a public service, it is instantly socialism and not American.

I realize Libertarians hate expansion and spending, but when utilized properly they work. I know Libertarians all want to live in this dream society where the government is small and fair and what you make is the result of how much work you do.

Bullshit.

I donapos;t know if any of you got the memo, but Capitalism is dead. It is now a system of investment and inheritance. The richest in the country are going to stay where they are. There is not a man in this country that can work hard enough or learn enough to ever have the money of Paris Hilton. It is all about how to invest or how much to inherit. The richest are there as a result of gambling, or some deceased realtive who had done something similar.

Why should we allow the richest to earn more and the destitute to lose it all simply because a handful of archaic politicians would have wanted it that way. Several of these fat cats do not spend more than those making dramticaly less than them So why not? If we can take just a bit more (Like Clinton did. Go on, Wiki him too. Youapos;ll love it) from the wealthy, and use it to fund social services and give back to the poorest, we guarantee a more stable economy and society. Look at the presidents who applied these philosophies. They are notorious for flourishing. Case in point: Bill Clinton.

Clinton had some of the most liberal spending and tax policies the country had ever seen. He applied them, and guess what Surplus. And donapos;t give me that Regan wave tosh. We all know that if Regan didnapos;t ride it, and Bush Sr. Didnapos;t ride it, the surf was flat.

Anyway thatapos;s all I can say. I hope you all forgive me; my sickness has made me ever so pissy, and the medicine is making me so tired and impatient. I want you to know that this is not meant to be a direct attack, just a reflection on how I feel. I do not doubt the Libertarian intellect; I can personally tell you many Libertarians are quite smart.

Your ideas just havenapos;t seemed to work.

code georgia suwanee zip, breast imaging society, breast imaging reporting and data system, breast imaging reporting and data, breast imaging oklahoma.