I had the exchange below with Ken Kaplan of the Libertarian Party - he has said would come to the River Edge Diner sometime.
-------- Begin forwarded message --------
Subject: Re: Libertarian Perspective
Date: 2/7/13 7:32:12 PM
From: "GUY GAROFANO"
To: [address removed]
I'm all for volunteerism - and when it comes to things like feeding people I agree its preferable to government action. I also agree that private indiviuals and businesses should not be rewarded for making bad decisions, etc.
But to say there can't be any governent involvement at all in recovery efforts makes no sense to me. Take New Orleans - can anyone reaonably argue that the port of new orleans is a "local" issue? Or that only the private sector should be involved? The port is vital to our national economy, foreign trade, etc. I find it hard to believe that the Founding Fathers would argue with that.
I was corresponding with someone from the 10th Amendment Society recently. I very much believe in federalism , state's rights, etc. But I asked this person if he thought much of the Federal storm aid was unconstitutional - he said "Absolutely". I then asked him if states and localities could recover sufficiently without Federal aid, his answer - "Of course not". So there is a perfect example of ideology colliding head on with reality.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:29 PM, [address removed] wrote:
I missed seeing this when you sent it, and just accidentally came across it in my unread mail. Voluntary efforts are always preferable to government action, and the outpouring of short term support for Sandy victims demonstrated that voluntarism works (I myself spent some time in a Hillside foodbank making baloney and cheese sandwiches), but I respect the role of government in creating and maintaining infrastructure. Beyond that, and I felt the same way about New Orleans, it is not the government's job to subsidize and reward bad decisions at the expense of all taxpayers. People who build and live close to the ocean need to assume the risks that go along with that. Yes, there may be great benefits in normal times, but they must pay the price for that, by building higher and stronger, or further from the shoreline, or insuring against the loss. The market will enforce the making of more sensible decisions, by refusing to insure stupid ones, or only doing so at prohibitive prices.
Maybe In a message dated 12/9/[masked]:51:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [address removed] writes:
Hi Ken, its Guy from Lincoln Park again. I wanted to get your perspective on disaster relief aid, in light of Hurricane Sandy, etc. Its awfully hard to make the case for less government to people after a disaster like that. From my point of view there is no doubt that private charities can do a better job than FEM when it comes to supplying food, clothes, etc. But then you get into housing (long term), and repairing infrastructure, etc. I think there is some role for government to play - at least when it comes to repairing roads, bridges, etc. Do you agree? Pewrsonally I think local and state governments should do alot of the things that the Feds do now. But what happens when towns and states are so devastated (and financially broke)? Is there some role for the Federal Government to play? I say yes - maybe FEMA as constituted should not exist, but there the Feds should play some role, if needed. Hope to get your thoughts, thanks,