While the constitution was a brilliant design of government, it was not designed perfectly. In my opinion, it could not have accounted for how society has evolved over the years.
Really? Not at all? Can you tell me why countries without a constitution are all have done worse than we have if the constitution makes no difference?
It is my sincerest belief that while personal freedom and a free market are important American ideals, they needs limitations. Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that sounds good on paper, but its actual application as a national system would be crazy.
They "needs" limitations? Why do the need limitations, and what limitations do they need?
In order to agree with you you would have to prove to me that the government gets it right at least as often as it gets it wrong. I doubt you can manage to find enough examples of the government getting things right to prove to me they only get it wrong 75% of the time.
The FDA? Seriously? Are you even smart enough to know that FDA regulations cause an artificial shortage of many drugs that are needed to keep people healthy? Only a complete nincompoop would argue that the FDA is the only legal reason drug companies make sure that their drugs are safe.
A Hospital Drug Shortage Made In Washington | Cato @ Liberty
As for the FAA, do you know they still require pilots to file flight plans on paper, and that air traffic controllers still use cards on a board to track flights? Do you honestly think that any private company tasked with the same job would still be using such outdated technology?
That has only been an issue in the monds of people that ignore facts.
Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.
Can you explain how the budget deficits are the fault of taxes? Do you understand that the only way to run a deficit in a budget is to spend more money than you make? Are you aware that, even if we taxed all the rich at 100% of their income, and that we actually took in as much as the asinine projections of that tactic think we will, we will not reduce the deficit significantly?
How would it rectify anything? All it would do is take the income from one group and give it to the government.
I really love people who think that a fair share for everyone means that a few people pay and most people skate. Do you have the slightest inkling that most of the real wealth, and most tax revenue, comes from the middle class? That is why the Bush tax cuts "cost" $2.6 trillion. If we counted only the cuts to the rich that you are so paranoid about the total cost would have been $600 billion.
Who is supposed to pay for the drug testing? Why are we worried about drugs anyway? We could save more money if we legalized them than we could make by taxing the rich.
Like I said, the government isn't perfect; it certainly does over-reach from time to time. However, I think people have become so black-and-white when it comes to personal freedom. The idea has become over-romanticized in today's politics. The truth of the matter is that it is human nature for people to be selfish. People cannot handle certain personal freedoms. They just can't. For the sake of the greater good, people need limitations.
If is human nature for people to be selfish why do people in disaster ares respond by sharing the little they have with each other?
Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.
You are not a freedom hating socialist, you are an ignorant partisan hack who does not know how to think for himself.
I can't wait to read someone's counterpoints to all of Quantum's points.
Quantum great work once again.