To: Voice in your head
The problem is just that: most people (not most FR posters, or most Internet pundits, but Americans as a whole) do not understand limited government, especially if it meant them giving up a perceived benefit (like Social Security). IMO the way to go about it is educating the average person by electing politicians willing to take small steps towards shrinking gov't, as opposed to hammering people about the candidate who'll cut 70% of gov't in day 1 but only get 2% of the vote from people who don't understand why a 70% cut is good if it means they give up some benefit.
I wrote to eliminate the whole department. That would include the FAA.
Sorry, I was unclear. Let me rephrase: as written above, your proposal would eliminate the FAA without reinstating it (or an agency with the same functions) under another branch or department.
If I misunderstood, and you actually don't want anyone to do what the FAA does, I might comment that I'm about as big a fan of small gov't as anyone but am against eliminating the FAA (without replacing it). I once wrote a libertarian argument against privatizing air traffic control, which would apply to the FAA as well. It's unique, but there may be other small agencies that have similar arguments for them. Those are the kinds of agencies no one should even talk about eliminating for years, until all the real waste and unconstitutional programs are eliminated.
posted on 02/02/2004 9:09:24 AM PST
(Your tagline here, for just pennies a day!)
IMHO, the key is the New Deal Commerce Clause and the substantial effects doctrine. Throw those out, and go back to the idea that "to regulate commerce among the several states" meant to simply keep interstate commerce in good working order, and the ones that need to go and the ones that need to stay become apparent.
posted on 02/03/2004 4:53:06 PM PST
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson