Would a Libertarian President be Good for America?
Debate Rounds (4)
First round is for acceptance only.
Like Democrats, they support personal freedoms, like the right to own marijuana, but like Republicans, they believe in small government, the right to bear arms, and the right to keep your own paycheck. (Not saying all Democrats and Republicans support the same stuff, but generally, their parties support and don't support the same things).
Smaller government is a good thing. All you have to do is take a good look at the world to realize that. Countries with free economies, like Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Australia do much better than countries with big governments and no economic freedom, like North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, or Iran.
A Libertarian in the White House could help our country, by giving us a smaller, less restrictive government, which in terms means more individual freedom. A country where we could actually keep our guns, our businesses, and our income.
There slogan is "Minimum Government Maximum Freedom" for a reason.
Those are my opening thoughts. Can't wait to read Con's.
On another note, I would like to address their education policies, which to my knowledge, request that public education be demolished and that any education should come at the full expense of the families. Some of these families can barely support their children to begin with and therefore these children are being deprived of their education. In some respects, education provides these children to branch out from their families rough past and start a new family legacy, one that is vastly improved. Our education system, as it stands, is corrupted and common core is not helping the problem. We are not the leading nation in any category of education, so why are we giving only the financially stable to afford education? College, while it may be understandable, puts families in a choke-hold to begin with, some college students have college loans following them well into their 40's, but at least they were old enough to choose the option of education. If public schools are demolished, there is going to be a gigantic monopoly of textbook companies because they will be abusing the system knowing that people will willingly pay good money for an education. Our youth is our future, even though I do not have children myself, I want to see my country grow so that when I am old and retired, I can rest assured that the minds then will take good care of me.
If I'm being perfectly honest, I don't care if other nation's hate this country. I love this country, and if they hate us over in North Korea or the Middle East, well, I don't care.
"COMPLETE freedom of speech is a little radical as well"
First off, we already have that. It's been a constitutional right as long as America has been independent. And it's not radical at all. It's a necessary protection to ensure freedom. Take it from Voltaire "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It"
"On another note, I would like to address their education policies, which to my knowledge, request that public education be demolished and that any education should come at the full expense of the families."
I have never heard a libertarian say that. I'm not saying that no libertarian believes it, but I don't believe most libertarians think that way.
But one thing I most definitely think is true is that the federal government needs to step out of public education and let state governments control what kids in their state learn. Time and time again, it's been proven that whenever Washington DC tries new educational policies, they don't work. No Child Left Behind failed, and Common Core is a joke. Moral of the story; DC makes terrible decisions concerning education, they should just give the states the money to teach, and let them do the teaching.
Here is a source that states all of the Libritarian stances in todays politics.It's a very reliable souce. As you can see, they want to more all responcibilty to the parents I 100% agree with you that educational policies that have been enforced are horibly questionable but the party as a whole stands for this ideal.
You may also find that other's opinion of our country pointless but we are consistantly in battle with terrorists. Even France, a european country, was attacked. As a world power the United States holds the responcibilty to be sure they are not their own downfall. If you havent noticed, security measures will also be removed based on this party's ideals which unfortunatly means our ability to see threats directly under our noses. We would be at risk of several bombings and perheps a breach into our military strongholds. People cant control everything. Individually we lack the knowledge that we would gain collectively. Laws were created to stabolize our people, start omiting them and we are permitting forbidden fruits that some have been starving for. Now more than ever we need a leader, not simply a releaser.
As for your terrorism thing, I don't see why a libertarian president wouldn't be good for the war on terror. Yes, libertarians are generally anti war, but we don't need a full scale war just to eliminate a couple terrorists. In fact, you could argue that a libertarian president would be great for the war on terror. Many terrorists claim to hate America because of our constant involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, and a libertarian president wouldn't be as involved in their affairs, thus giving terrorists less of an excuse to hate us in the first place.
HesitentGreyFox, thank you for debating with me.
I would like to end my counter argument with a thank you as well. You have been a very formidable debater. Im glad that I took the challenge as I feel I have retooled my skills during the duration. I hope that you found the argument pleasent enough as it was not my intention to be condescending but to be challenging and well prepared to make a case. Im glad that in the long run we both care about our country and only want the best for it and thats what really matters. :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.