(First 2 Pages)
It’s the basic political urge of proving ones mettle for obtaining votes that leads to increased attention gaining activities of political parties. It is in this respect that the welfare programs also function. They are also like many others, a source of protection and promotion of welfare. But Adam Smith’s invisible hands theory seems to be working here as well. The individualized selfish motives of gaining votes by the politician leads to actions that benefit the general public such as the welfare reforms.
This is especially so with the statements about welfare of the people. When the Libertarians made the statement on the medical marijuana issue, it immediately led to sulky remarks from the other side in U.S. Rep. Bob Barr who pictured Libertarians as “druggies.” It is the truth of the day that welfare reforms attach with themselves huge amounts of emotions which are then rightly taken advantage of from the political parties. Political parties face such emotional appeals from the opponents by giving stronger emotional arguments. The truth comes out during the debates where one should use a shotgun strategy. It means giving hard time on several welfare or other issues. The other way round is the sniper strategy where one makes grounds on any one issue. It is the successful usage of these strategies, which ultimately leads to winning votes over different issues and welfare being the most emotional one.
Welfare encompasses everyone without denying just as justice, which is for everyone. It is the constitution that plays the role of pasting scattered things together. One such issue is domestic violence. Republican Bob Barr filed a bill HR-26, which was to repeal the retroactive aspects of the 1996 Lautenberg Act. That legislation made it a crime for anyone ever convicted of domestic violence to own a firearm or a single bullet. The Republican suggested a penalty of $250,000 fine or 10 years in jail. It suggests that civil liberties are conditional on good behavior meaning that the past records of criminality or such does not possibly make people lose all future rights to protection against illegal search and seizure, self-incrimination or cruel and unusual punishment. It was then debated by the Libertarian Jorgensen that this bill would erase the “innocent until proven guilty” concept
. . . . . .