Q&A With George Phillies: Domestic Issues

TPW: What role—if any—should the government have in educating children?

George Phillies: I have four specific proposals on Federal involvement:

There is no more important investment in the future than the education of our children and grandchildren. When you invest wisely by paying to educate a child, whether your own child or the child of impoverished parents, you should receive a dollar for dollar Federal tax credit for your investment up to some credible limit. Investment in education will build a wealthier America more comfortable with Libertarian platform proposals. Investment in education reduces the money available for Wars on Nothing and Bridges to Nowhere. Child-centered educational investment builds competition in educational approaches.

The No Child Left Behind Act bears no semblance to a legitimate activity of the Federal government. I will work for its repeal. In its place, I will ask Congress to phase in my proposed tax credit, $5000 to each child, available to anyone or any company that contributes to a child’s education. That’s enrichment like computers, books in the house, and a daily newspaper subscription, factors proven to improve a child’s educational performance. That’s tuition for private schoolers. That’s teaching materials for home schoolers. At the university level, the Federal government invests enormous sums. Huge amounts go to the manned space station, a boondoggle that contributes very little scientific research. The Bush Republican Party blocks research on stem cells and global warming. So long as I am President, science policy will not be dictated by people who think the earth is flat. I may differ with Congress on how much money the Federal government should spend on real science, but I will work vigorously to make sure that your money is spent well.

Finally, Congress is legally responsible for D.C. Until it fixes D.C. schools, it should stop telling other people how to educate their children.

————————————————————-

TPW: In regards to ending the war on drugs, how exactly would you approach implementation of your policies? Should the US undergo an immediate decriminalization of all substances? Or do you favor a more incremental approach focusing first on “less serious” drugs like marijuana?

George Phillies: Here we move to a major challenge for the Libertarian Party. Voters think we are fixated on drug legalization, guns.… Most voters want us to talk about their critical issues, such as Iraq, immigration, civil liberties, and energy. Most pPot smokers and gun owners agree with other voters: Talk about Iraq. Note our limited success with the drug and gun communities.

My campaign will focus on issues that concern voters. I will give voters our sensible libertarian solutions. I’m not abandoning Libertarian signature issues. I’m 100% pro-choice for all women everywhere in America. I stand 100% for allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. I’m 100% against allowing some religions to decide which people other religions can marry.

I don’t let polling decide my stands on issues. I do let polling tell me which issues voters care about, and which issues bore voters to tears. That’s the path that will lead to drug policy reform: Convince voters that we solved their critical problems, and they will trust us on other problems.

Realistically speaking, the answer to your question is ‘tell me where there are votes in Congress’. I will remind Congress: When I was a little boy, there were 1930s gangster movies on television. My parents always said ‘prohibition doesn’t work’ and ‘no one will ever be stupid enough to try that again’. People about to die deserve relief from pain. We should not restrict how much pain relief is given to the terminally ill. The American people by an overwhelming margin prefer to legalize medical marijuana. I will dwell upon the racist nature of the war on drugs. Then we’ll see where I can find votes.

————————————————————-

TPW: If elected President, how would you approach the issue of illegal immigration?

George Phillies: So much of the world is not like us: They fear the entrance of foreigners. Yes, we do have people who fear immigration if it is from south of the border or from across the Pacific, or who deprecate favorable references to the ancestors of the majority of us as ‘eurocentric’. I do not share those narrow-minded views. I think it is wonderful to live in a country that welcomes immigrants from every part of the globe, no matter the color of their eyes or skin.

However, America cannot have open borders and a massive social welfare system at the same time. If we do, we will go broke. We do not have to wonder how other places will react to truly open American borders. During the short period when the boatlift gave us a de facto open border with Cuba, the Castro government used the opportunity to empty its mental hospitals and ship us the patients.

America should welcome immigration, on terms and at rates beneficial to our country. The American people reasonably expect that our laws on immigration will be enforced until they are changed, and they are right to do so. Here the American people differ from the Bush Republicans and the Democrats, whose attitude is that immigration laws should mostly be ignored.

37 Responses to “Q&A With George Phillies: Domestic Issues”

  1. Robert Milnes Says:

    George, I propose that we ask Native Americans how they feel about immigration…first. Now, before we get too far ahead of ourselves: It looks like this site has embarked on a two candidate debate which is unfair to the other candidates. However, I suggest a remedy. I think the comments section has enough space for the usual comments plus the replies of the rest of the libertarian candidates. It could be their choice whether to reply to the question, the priviliged candidate’s reply or to others’ comments.

  2. globalist_elitist Says:

    Milnes - I will make a donation for every unique IP address who identifies himself/herself as a supporter of your campaign. You and your mom don’t count. My guess is I’ll be donating $0. You are not a real candidate. You are a mental case who should be forcibly institutionalized before you harm yourself or others.

  3. Sonya Says:

    Milnes: YOU ARE NOT A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but you aren’t running for President. Just saying you are a candidate doesn’t make you an actual candidate.

    You have no money, no supporters, no organization, and you will not get any votes from anyone. You aren’t a candidate, and pretending that you are a candidate is only wasting YOUR TIME. Please stop. Go run for a different office, one where you might actually GET ON THE BALLOT. You won’t win, of course, because you’re ape shit retarded crazy. But at least you would be a real candidate that people could vote for if they wanted to.

    But again: As much as you say you’re a Presidential candidate—YOU SIMPLY ARE NOT A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. NEVER HAVE BEEN. PROBABLY NEVER WILL BE.

    Get it through your head already. NO ONE TAKES YOU SERIOUSLY!

  4. globalist_elitist Says:

    BTW: Kubby clearly wins round 2.

  5. globalist_elitist Says:

    “When” Phillies is president, scientific policy will not be directed by people who think the word is flat - but trade and immigration policy will be. Read Tom Friedman’s book, George.

  6. Robert Milnes Says:

    Sonya, your link goes to Libertymix. So you could be anybody. The more anonymous, the less credibility.

  7. globalist_elitist Says:

    There is no greater anonyminity than non-existence. You are a figment of your own imagination, Milns. Close your eyes and you will cease to exist.

  8. Tom Bryant Says:

    “The Bush Republican Party blocks research on stem cells and global warming”

    To be accurate, the GOP doesn’t block research, it stops funding certain research.

    The reasoning may be flawed, but the outcome is good.

    Government should not be funding scientific research on stem cells or global warming (or anything else, with the exception of defense systems).
    If there is no market demand for research, that means that private investors don’t think anything will come from the research that people want enough to spend money on.

    We don’t need to be taxed so that politicians can fund pet projects to cater to their donors.

  9. Chris Says:

    I’m 100% pro-choice for all women everywhere in America. I stand 100% for allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. I’m 100% against allowing some religions to decide which people other religions can marry.

    So what the hell does this have to do with the question Austin asked? It took 4 paragraphs to not answer the question?

  10. SovereignMN Says:

    Chris, if you think that question-dodging was bad just watch the GOP “debate” tonight.

  11. Trent Hill Says:

    Yea. Romney is like an eel. He hasnt answered one question yet.

  12. globalist_elitist Says:

    Romney is truly like the “slickster” politician stereotype in a Lifetime TV movie. He probably has a 14-year-old girlfriend he’s abusing.

  13. Chris Says:

    Chris, if you think that question-dodging was bad just watch the GOP “debate” tonight.

    I don’t plan on voting for those question dodgers, either. Usually those running for the Libertarian nomination answer the questions they are asked. It’s disappointing that Dr. Phillies chose not to.

    In contrast, Kubby was concise and clearly answered exactly what was asked.

  14. Kris Overstreet Says:

    Phillies did answer the drug issue; he said, in effect, that he supports full decriminalization but not until he’d proven that Libertarians could be trusted on the issues the voters actually give a damn about. He’s not going to make it a leading issue.

    As for immigration, over 60% of voters support greater, not less, immigration. Even had the Libertarian Party standing equal to the duopoly parties- in money, ballot access, media coverage, and organization- a strong “fully open borders come on everybody” stance would doom our candidates. Phillies DID fail to answer the immigration question, but what he said sounds pretty much like “controlled but no more restrictive than now, possibly less.”

    Note: I’m not endorsing Phillies, not yet anyway. My preferred candidate was Stanhope, and now I’m back to shopping.

  15. matt Says:

    “I’m 100% against allowing some religions to decide which people other religions can marry.”

    Religions are marrying each other? Brilliant. I predict some domestic violence in the Hinduism/Islam household.

  16. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Pay attention, Matt! What he really said was that some religions are marrying people. And that other religions are trying to control which peopel they are marrying.

    Which is totally weird.

  17. Susan Hogarth Says:

    GP wrote:

    “Finally, Congress is legally responsible for D.C. Until it fixes D.C. schools, it should stop telling other people how to educate their children.”

    It sure sounds like Phillies wants Congress to run the schools in D.C. Haven’t those poor people (in D.C.) suffered enough?

  18. Jake Porter Says:

    Susan,

    Congress currently runs the schools in D.C., and they do a very poor job of it. That is what George is saying. Why should we want them to destroy more schools?

  19. sam i am Says:

    If the Baptists don’t want gays to marry, and the Unitarians do, why should Baptists pass a law against it? Or, why should Unitarians pass a law that if Baptists decline to perform the ceremonies they are guilty of hate crimes? (I don’t know if Unitarians perform gay marriages, this is just an example).

  20. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Jake,

    I agree with what you are saying. Perhaps George meant to say the same thing. I simply am suggesting that he needs to work on his message here. It sounds like he wants government to work on getting better at doing the school thing, rather than getting out of the school thing.

  21. globalist_elitist Says:

    Yes, let’s get that damn secular government out of the school business and turn it over to the Christian madrassas. What the hell did Adam Smith know about capitalism anyway?

  22. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Very nice, G_E. Textbook example.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

    1) Churches run schools now. Do you think they should be stopped?

    2) Can you really only imagine two sources of education - the state and the church?

  23. [email protected] Says:

    global elitist,

    You write:

    “What the hell did Adam Smith know about capitalism anyway?”

    Um … nothing. He died 45 years before the term was coined by Thackeray to denote a “mixed” regulated industrial economy, 58 years before Marx popularized the term as that stage of economic historical evolution immediately preceding the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and (depending on whether you place importance on patent application for the cotton gin, patent granting of the cotton gin, or public promotion of the concept of standardized parts) 4, 17, or 20 years before Eli Whitney made the Industrial Revolution, and its concomitant economic system, capitalism, possible.

  24. sam i am Says:

    adam smith? hah!

    http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/Q11_4.pdf

  25. globalist_elitist Says:

    Susan- I’m with Adam Smtih. Rothbard, Von Mises- pick the racist of your choice. I’ll stick by Smtih, Ricardo, Stuart Mill, etc. Just call me a “commie.”

    Knappster, my friend: Call me a Marxist. I love capitalism. You can live in your fantasy world all you want. I’m conentrated on building wealth. Peace.

  26. globalist_elitist Says:

    sam i am- I read the first four words of your link and then I wanted to throw up.

    Murray Rothbard = racist loser.

    Adam Smtih = god of capitalism

    You = suck

  27. sam i am Says:

    Please detail Rothbard’s alleged racism.

  28. sam i am Says:

    Is this global_elitist?

    I would like to say that since comming to this site I have cut my fecal messys dow from 1 a day to one a week , I am going for once a month where I can go out and just relax my bowels against the wall and poo. I do admit to having a problem and NO I get no sexual kicks from doing this. Please read my posts under shitting on college walls and bathroom stories. Several people in here have talked to me about it and I came here for help. If i just wanted to talk about sick fantasys I would have gone to some Scat site where I would have been encouraged to continue this behavior and talk about it from a god point of view. Granted I do have certain ethics I follw when deciding how and where I will shit on a wall or a hand dryer.

    Childrens areas , and seniors are out of the question.

    I targeted womens tampon dispensors , and mens restrooms. peoples door steps and car hoods. yes I enjoy it simply because it is fun and I am pissing some one off. How ever I do realize that this can ruin my life and thus choose to attempt to stop it. Thanks poopreport for all your advice.

    Sincerly The_Shitman AKA Madcrapper AKA Fecal Phantom AKA jason

  29. sam i am Says:

    from Eric Dondero’s years at sea:

    http://www.poopreport.com/Fun/mad_shitter.html

  30. Carl Says:

    George Phillies is right on immigration. Either we tolerate a greater wealth gap at home or we control the borders.

    Low wage earners get more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. Ergo, admitting millions of low wage earners increases the tax burden for those who pay taxes.

    Want to help the poor abroad? Write a check to ISIL.

  31. globalist_elitist Says:

    That is B.S., Carl. Immigration makes us all richer. If that contributes to a “wealth gap,” so be it. I don’t care. I just want to be able to earn as much as I can, and I don’t want to deny anyone else that same right. That = freedom. You = want the government’s guns to protect your lazy ass from competition.

  32. Robert Milnes Says:

    Looks like I largely agree with Carl & George on this issue. The lp platform calls for electronic surveillance & high tech monitoring of the border to compel crossing at recognized entry points. i.e. smart fence (whether it is recognized as such or not). g-e, I would call flooding the market with low wage workers virtual wage-slavery. How is that = freedom?

  33. globalist_elitist Says:

    Flooding the market? “Virtual” wage slavery?

    As a business owner, I should have the right to hire anyone who can do the job, at any wage we find mutually agreeable.

    As an individual in search of employment, I should be able to offer my labor to anyone who wants to hire me at the wage that we find mutally agreeable.

    How does this compare to “slavery”?

    Low-skilled workers DESERVE low wages. Idiot. That results in low-cost goods that individuals can buy more of.

    The George Phillies/ Robert Milnes ticket would have the world be a place in which production was scarce; goods and services expensive and thus less plentiful; but losers like Milnes and his ilk were “protected” from competition.

    Immigration controls = worse than welfare.

  34. Robert Milnes Says:

    g-e, in the world according to g-e, EVERYBODY shops at Wal-Mart.

  35. globalist_elitist Says:

    No. Some people may prefer Target. Some people may even prefer the higher level of service at a small mom and pop store. But guess what: Wal-Mart is there for people who need it; for people who need to stretch their dollars. Elitists like Robert Milnes want to deny poor people the ability to have things.

  36. Robert Milnes Says:

    G-e, how do you figure I’m elitist?

  37. globalist_elitist Says:

    Because you want to make personal shopping decisions for poor people that conform to YOUR idiotic values. This is what elites always do - they try to “preserve” the way of life for the little people; i.e. trap them in poverty.