Q&A With Steve Kubby: Domestic Issues

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

Steve Kubby: The federal government should have no role at all—the Constitution clearly and carefully enumerates the federal government’s powers, and administering education is not one of those powers. As a candidate for president, my position must be “hands off the states” on education and many other issues, but I hope that the states will likewise devolve their education functions to localities, and the localities to parents.

————————————————————-

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 approachfocusing first on “less serious” drugs like marijuana?

Steve Kubby: As a presidential candidate, I’ve already written an executive order for immediate implementation if I am elected. That executive order would effectively dissolve the Drug Enforcement Administration and other executive branch “war on drugs” functions (which were themselves created by executive order under Nixon). The federal drug war as we know it began with the stroke of a pen, and it can be ended in the same way. Once again, it’s “hands off the states,” but recent history suggests that they would move in the same direction, albeit perhaps a bit more slowly—perhaps through medical marijuana, then marijuana in general, then on to “harder” drugs. The faster the better.

————————————————————-

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

Steve Kubby: I’d immediately begin pushing Congress to make all immigration—immigration being the movement of peaceful people over borders—legal. In my view, restrictions on immigration constitute a huge national security threat: Millions of ordinary, peaceful people are forced into the role of criminal in order to live and work, and the size of that crowd gives cover to real criminals and terrorists. We can’t secure our borders against attack or invasion while simultaneously—and ineffectively—trying to close them to millions of non-enemies.

21 Responses to “Q&A With Steve Kubby: Domestic Issues”

  1. globalist_elitist Says:

    Kubby is 100% right on immigration.

    As for education: Adam Smith supported public education. That’s good enough for me. But I don’t think the federal government should be involved. As for drugs, I think a practical libertarian position would be a) End all federal drug laws except whereas outlined in “b”; b) Continue enforcement against the importation of “illegal” drugs and maintain ban on interstate transfer of drugs, except where two bordering states make a law allowing it.

    I’m for the 100% decriminalization of drugs, but to most people, that doesn’t sound sensible. The plan above could persuade a lot of anti-drug people.

  2. globalist_elitist Says:

    BTW, these are really great questions, Austin. Good job.

  3. Jason Gatties Says:

    And today we got to see why I stopped supporting the Phillies campaign in favor of Steve Kubby….immigration.

  4. globalist_elitist Says:

    Yes, Phillies’s position is embarassingly unlibertarian. Trade is just as bad. I like his pragmatism on other issues, but he were the nominee, he would be less libertarian than the two major parties on those two issues, in all likelihood.

  5. SovereignMN Says:

    “I’d immediately begin pushing Congress to make all immigration—immigration being the movement of peaceful people over borders—legal.”

    Sounds like a massive government program.

    “In my view, restrictions on immigration constitute a huge national security threat:”

    This quote makes no sense.

  6. globalist_elitist Says:

    SMN: Your post makes no sense.

    Legalization immigration = the abolition/redution of a huge government program. As for how it enhances U.S. security, Kubby answered that admirably. If you say it “makes no sense,” then that’s just more of the CP being divorced from reality. It makes perfect sense, as outlined above.

  7. Chris Says:

    Sounds like a massive government program.

    In what way?

    This quote makes no sense.

    It might if you continue reading past the colon:

    Millions of ordinary, peaceful people are forced into the role of criminal in order to live and work, and the size of that crowd gives cover to real criminals and terrorists. We can’t secure our borders against attack or invasion while simultaneously—and ineffectively—trying to close them to millions of non-enemies.

    You may disagree, but it makes sense to me. If you open up immigration, then peaceful people will walk through the front door. Then you know that those who entered illegally through the back window are a real threat. Maybe this gets to your “massive government program” statement, since a government agency will have to monitor those coming through legally and to find and apprehend those who cross the border illegally. However, how is this any more massive a government program than what is currently in place?

  8. SovereignMN Says:

    Here’s how I see it as a massive government program. If you have an open door immigration policy for “peaceful” immigrants then you need to have some sort of system in place to ensure that it’s only the “peaceful” people coming in. That means big checkpoints at the borders/ports, a large database to track all incoming people, a large network to ensure local law enforcement agencies are synched up to the database, and a monitoring system to apprehend/deport those that are not “peaceful”.

    In theory, our government has a similar program in place already today for those that DO come here legally. The difference then? You would want to take all 10-30 million here illegally and make them go through the same network. So instead of the current program tracking the X million that come here legally you would be adding 10-30 million. However you slice it, that’s a government expansion.

    “It might if you continue reading past the colon:
    Millions of ordinary, peaceful people are forced into the role of criminal in order to live and work, and the size of that crowd gives cover to real criminals and terrorists. ”

    Sorry, nobody is FORCING anyone into the role of criminal. You come into this country in violation of our laws then you are breaking them of your own free will. They may not necessarily be violent criminals but they are criminals nonetheless.

    So again, “restrictions on immigration constitute a huge national security threat”. Makes no sense. If you had no restrictions on immigration then any terrorist operative could enter our country today and we’d have no ability to perform a background check.

  9. Chris Moore Says:

    Why the hell won’t my comment post?!

  10. globalist_elitist Says:

    Chris - There are some weird spam filter issues. Does your post have a lot of numbers or dollar signs or percentages in it?

  11. globalist_elitist Says:

    SMN = Socialist.

  12. Kris Overstreet Says:

    See, this is why I’m quite unfond of Kubby: the straight anarchist line with only the thinnest possible veneer of incrementalism.

  13. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Kris,

    Radicals welcome positive change - even in little dribs and drabs. They just don’t confuse the goal (freedom) with the path (dribs and drabs).

    As the Most Awesome William Lloyd Garrison (so awesome he needed three names to express his awesomeness) put it:

    “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”

  14. sam i am Says:

    state sovereignty over people:

    The only way not to have a massive welfare program is to have a massive welfare program. Makes perfect sense, sure.

  15. globalist_elitist Says:

    I’m for personal freedom and growth. Where is my candidate?

    Giuliani = tax, spending, immigration, trade

    Ron Paul = civil liberties, foreign policy (non-trade/immigration)

    Hillary = homos, abortion

  16. Trent Hill Says:

    Ron Paul is for strong border control GE. He’s also for free trade.

    So I dont know wether you were listing good or bad traits, but one of those is wrong.

  17. SovereignMN Says:

    “SMN = Socialist”

    Thanks for the laugh.

  18. Kris Overstreet Says:

    Susan: “Radicals welcome positive change - even in little dribs and drabs. They just don’t confuse the goal (freedom) with the path (dribs and drabs).”

    Radicals, however, do seem unable to grasp that by demanding the goal now, and alienating the vast majority, they’ll never get the dribs and drabs at all, much less the goal.

  19. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Kris:

    Interesting. You lost interest in Phillies because he said “I’m running my campaign to build our party, not to pay my staff and put me in front of the voters.”

    Do you want Phillies to demand the goal (presidency) now, rather than working on a more short-term goal (building the Party)? That seems in conflict with your position above, where yo take me to task for ‘demanding the goal now’.

    Incidentally, I demand nothing - I am hardly in a position to make demands. What I do is hold the goal (freedom) to the light and work toward it. If the idea of freedom is offensive or ‘alienating’ to people, we have a task that is much more herculean than winning elections - even the presidential one.

    But fortunately I think progress will not be linear; there will be a ‘tipping point’ beyond which the idea of restrictions on freedom seem shocking or even (happy day) laughable for people to think about.

  20. Kris Overstreet Says:

    Susan, anarchy is always going to be a hard, if not impossible, sell to voters. Dismantling the armed forces, abolishing police, removing laws against poisoning people through poor quality products with undocumented contents or by polluting the common air and water supplies, throwing millions of the elderly out on the street by ending their SS and Medicare, wrecking our economy by unilateral free trade and destroying the money supply- all of these positions are anathema to the voters, and all of them are proposed by our party’s leadership, our party’s candidates and, until recently, our party’s platform. If we don’t pick smaller, more acceptable goals to advocate, we’ll keep right on scaring the straights and remaining politically insignificant.

    If Phillies wants to build the party, he should be a volunteer and internal party activist. He should not be a candidate, because candidates have one job and one job only- GET ELECTED. Running to “educate” not only interferes in that, it runs directly against it by driving off voters who refuse to endorse a candidate who never expects to actually serve.

  21. George Phillies Says:

    Let me note that I explained how I am going to do the things that make it more likely that I will win, and more likely that other Libertarians will win in the future. That involves building a stronger party organization rather than doing a better job of padding my staff payroll.

    Overstreet’s attack on my campaign plans is based on fabrications about what I am proposing to do.

Leave a Reply