Briefly, before my time on the library computer ends and the place shuts down. Let's talk about political beliefs, shall we?

I've become a bit torn of late. A lot of my recent reading--Ron Paul's The Revolution, several articles in the alternative quarterly Vermont Commons, etc.--have introduced me to some of the more attractive ideas that inspire libertarianism. There's a lot to be said for a doctrine which believes, first, in a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution, second, in the individual's rights as guaranteed under that document, and third, in limiting the power of federal goverment to matters requiring national attention, which cannot be adequately handled on the state, municipal, or personal level. It suggests, strongly, the need for an actively engaged, informed, passionate civic body, and seems to exemplify the ideas which went into the founding of America to begin with. The purpose of the Constitution, after all, is to set clear limits on the powers of the federal government. I've actually been reading it this afternoon, and realizing just how far we've drifted as a nation.
However, I see several definite drawbacks to libertarianism, particularly as reflected in Ron Paul's book. First, Paul advocates the abolition of income taxes and of tariffs and other penalties for imported goods. While this latter especially has lnog been pointed to as a force which serves only the interests of corporate America, and not the consumer, the removal of Congress's sole sources under the Constitution for collecting money strieks me as a sure way to destroy what's left of America. A government with no money coming in cannot pay out in any direction without increasing the already enormous deficits. Worse, a federal government with no money that tried nevertheless to cut spending would, among other probabilities, have to lower and eventually do away with salaries for federal employees. Which may seem all well and good until one realizes that the only way to accomplish this is to encourage de facto restrictions on who may serve in federal office, limiting them entirely to those able to support themselves without having to be at another job. In effect, we would transform our federal government into the oligarchical republic known by the Romans--exactly what this country is supposed to be fighting against.
There are other problems, of course, more broadly. While I agree on principle with decentralizing education and healthcare, for instance--let these things work at the state and local level; get rid especially of government's insistence on insurance (federal or HMO), and perhaps limit the power of the Department of Ed--at the same time I understand the impetus driving both. The federal education system is intended, after all, to insure that our children are being taken care of. Systems in place in which government takes money from everyone to pay for everyone's kids' education, in my book, is not immoral (as Paul would call it): it is putting forth the belief that we all, individuals though we be, have a responsibility toward our nation as a whole, and toward ensuring the greatness of our children and their peers. Which is not to say that federal money should have heavy strings attached; minimal federal oversight would be sufficient, however. Primarily, the federal government ought to serve as a secondary funding source, giving equal money to all schools, and spending more of its budget on making sure schools have adequate funding. Perhaps minimal national standards have their place. Beyond ensuring that our children are receiving proper intellectual care, however, federal government should stay out. I reject that federal involvement necessitates indoctrination, any more than having academic content determined by state or local governments is likewise indoctrination (and it certain is, regardless of which government is controlling it, or whether it's simply the parents of the community--it's always indoctrination). Likewise, I think all Americans have an obligation toward each other, to make sure we are all fed, clothed, warm, healthy. This doesn't necessarily mean forced distribution of wealth, either; it means humanitarian effort on the local level, where people are more inclined to be humanitarians.
While I accept in many particulars the positions of libertarianism, I also reject one of their fundamental tenets, that the marketplace is the best form of efficiency. Much of what I've been reading suggests that if schools and health care providers were allowed to compete more fully for customers, we'd have better schools and insurance companies. I doubt it. First, as poorer schools failed to compete, they'd be forced to close, making it necessary for the poor students they had taught to go elsewhere--probably to more expensive schools. Assuming this doesn't drive their families broke and starving, it would place significantly more burden on those better schools to accomodate more students. Those schools would then begin to suffer many of the issues currently being decried in America's schools: overcrowding, insufficient funding. We'd be back at square one, only with even fewer schools to choose from. Marketplace mentality does not strike me as an effective way to fix the school system, at all.
So I find myself at a bit of a loss. I hate the idea of labels, yet I constantly seek them out, to pigeonhole myself. And I can't find one that helps other people understand my beliefs. I'm not even sure I understand them, for that matter. There are a lot of gray areas, a lot of places where I see both sides of the issue, where I'm really not sure what I think. Without having yet read over the specifics, I think I'm probably most in agreement with the Republican party of George Aiken and other New Englanders, who were progressive in many ways, yet true to their party's original stance on spending and smaller government. I'll keep posting on here as I discover more about me and them, I guess...

A query: Why hasn't anyone ever started the machinery for a Constitutional Amendment requiring Presidential elections to involve anything other than state governments? After all, the true text of the Constitution only mentions state-appointed electors. Why haven't we fixed this to guard against a removal of the people from the entire process somewhere down the road?