[NIGHTWATCH]

Im ignorant for the most part when it comes to politics. And I tend to be more on the emotional side of issues, but then, do I need to have a masters in political science to know when my freedoms are being threatened? :(

I understand the basics. God created me free. Nuff said. The question I ask myself more often these days is which party today is representing the American people in that it is seeking to preserve freedom? Complete freedom.

While I was once a registered democrat and last voted republican. This present administration has proven itself to be as wasteful as the dems. Bigger government and out of control spending (especially foriegn). The global agenda is obvious (the war on terrorism excluded). And now we are calling to our enemies to help us in Iraq (the U.N.) when we should be breaking from that body of tyrants. :scrutiny: I am becoming more distrustful of the "conservatives" as time goes on. To say nothing on the AWB.

I believe that we should pull out of the world. Break from the U.N. Spend our money here bettering our lives. That Americans should be free. Limited government. Legal drugs. Free trade. Legal gay partnerships. Stop imposing religion on others. Abolish the I.R.S., etc. FREEDOM. Enforce the constitution and relinquish control to the people. Sound familiar?

What party do you think is on the right path? I seem to be leaning more and more with the libertarian movement these days.

[Moparmike]

I too am a libertarian. A libertarian-leaning Republican introduced me to libertarianism, and I havent looked back since. I still cant completely convince myself that the .gov pulling completely out of the corprate world is a good idea though. However, getting rid of welfare, IRS, making the .gov run on tarrifs and such, maybe a national 1% sales tax, getting rid of the DOE's, relegating the BATFE to just explosives (i.e. artillery, c-4, etc) are a few things I approve of.

Why artillery and high explosives? To be honest, its a little different then firearms. C-4 and nukes, etc. should be regulated, and I cant exactly explain why. It is an opinion, that will take a paragraph to explain and still seem a little foggy. Why do I want artillery to be registered? Because, when I encourage the states to beef up their militias and turn the National Guard into militias, the artillery might come in handy.

The trouble with libertarians are that too many of them consider themselves "pragmatists" (myself included), where that they know that an LP candidate would be best in office, but he/she stands the same chance of being elected as a snow cone on Mercury. If we convinced all the "libertarians" to vote for a candidate instead of who they think will win, we could probably do it. That is what the Free State Project is all about. I would love to do that if I was financially independent (like Bill Gates or something).

[Marko Kloos]

Libertarianism is not very popular in this country for one reason.

Most people love the fact that they would get to do Activity A without interference from the government. Most people also hate the fact that they wouldn't get to tell their neighbor to stop doing Activity B.

Most voters just cannot bear the thought of not being able to enforce their favorite prohibition.

[NewShooter78]

Libertarianism won't gather much steam until there is a really high profile candidate that garners major media attention. I know that is sucks to say that, but that is how most people get their information these days. If its not on the boob tube, then its lost the the majority of Americans.

Libertarianism also doesn't automatically give any one, large group of Americans any special privliges. The rich can't ostrisize the poor, minorities can't gain special recognition (other than being considered equal with the rest of society), and it doesn't offer anything for free except the freedom to live your life as you see fit.

Libertarianism also follows a strict Constitutional dogma (forgive the word). Libertarians don't belive in bending the Constitution for personal gains, nor do they ignore the plainly writen language in which this living document exists.

-don

[fish2xs]

I am leaning back towards Libertarianism after reading about
recent RNC comments (see post: Republicans == Socialists???).
However, one other thing to consider is that there is a difference
(or so I've been told) between libertarianism (the idea) versus
Libertarians (the political party). I'm not sure what they are,
but for whatever reason, the Libertarian party has not put together
the right combo to be much more than the Ralph Nader party.

One example I've heard of is that the Libertarians believe in
totally open borders. That I can never support - unless every
government funded reason for illegals to come here is removed.
Given what is going on in CA, I suspect that will never happen.

Right now, I do not feel like I have a political home.

[Deepdiver]

I am one of those libertarians that usually votes republican so that I don't waste my one vote against the democrats. I recently decided, however, that we will never make any progress that way. I now vote LP whenever there is a good LP candidate, regardless of it's impact on the election.

Hope Springs Eternal!!

[MrAcheson]

Not a big fan of libertarianism. I find it to be much like Communism. In theory it could work, but most of the specifics necessary for the function of society would be unpalatable to the general populace.

I also find libertarianism lacking in meaningful solutions to national problems. For instance, libertarians tend to have an almost religious and dogmatic view of self regulation and the market as the cure to all evils. Remove these big government structures and regulatory authorities and replace them with nothing. Don't worry the market will self regulate eventually. Will it? New technologies do not self-regulate but tend towards abusive monopolies. This can be the railroad in the 19th century or the computer revolution of the 20th. Where is the equilibrium point and what connotations does that equilibrium have? An example of this is the rampant environmental problems of the industrial period.

Most of the time I agree with the libertarians that governmental solutions to problems are poor. However the libertarian solution to most of these problems is non-existant. One out of ten is still infinitely more than zero in this case.

[Deepdiver]

MrArcheson, you make some very good points.

Unfortunately, Libertarism is the only party with a platform that approaches what "Jeffersonism" might be, IF we had a political party that subscribed to the principles espoused by Thomas Jefferson.

Unfortunately, IMO, neither of the two dominant parties in this country even know who Thomas Jefferson was, let alone, what he stood for.

As to your comment I also find libertarianism lacking in meaningful solutions to national problems.

..I can't completely disagree, but that having been said, it also applies to the republican and democratic parties. IMO, their platforms are all about perpetuating their own powerbase, and have little, if anything, to do with true public service. Just read their platforms/agendas; it comes across pretty strong. What I hear is, "tell us what you want so we can BUY your vote".

....and, BTW, the vast majority of this country's technological and economic advances (and solutions to national problems) have been fostered by the private sector, DESPITE the obstacles and barriers created by the public sector, rather than the result of any government stewardship.

...But, thank God we still have the freedom to have these discussions without having the "thought police" haul us off to the gulag :D !

[MrAcheson]

Yes libertarians are true Jeffersonians. Until you look at what Jefferson and the rest of the FF actually did... Even Jefferson realized that many of the ideals of the Revolution were untenable for a working government which was capable of meeting the needs of the people.

their platforms are all about perpetuating their own powerbase, and have little, if anything, to do with true public service.

Thats arguable. The parties represent their constituents but also influence them. Most democrats want gun control and like the services provided by government. Most republicans are socially and/or fiscally conservative and want a smaller government (whatever that means to them). The problem with properly representing a subgroup is that you tend to "perpetuate your powerbase". Thats just you doing a good job and giving your constituents what they ask for. Neither party is really representing the country as a whole and therein lies the problem.

BTW, the vast majority of this country's technological and economic advances (and solutions to national problems) have been fostered by the private sector, DESPITE the obstacles and barriers created by the public sector, rather than the result of any government stewardship.

This is tenuous. Most large industrial and infrastructure projects have needed some form of government impetus to get them going. We would not have a transcontinental railroad, or a panama canal, or any number of other projects if the government hadn't gotten involved. Most technological advances have started with or benefitted from military R&D money. And while private industry does solve problems it also causes them by not regulating itself. The truth is not so clear cut.

[BHPshooter]

Right now, I do not feel like I have a political home.

Sadly enough, that's exactly how I feel too. I also consider myself more as a libertarian [small l], not a Libertarian [large L].

A lot about politics confuses me, and as far as I can figure, it has been made like that. Take for example the definitions of "Liberal" and "Conservative."

What I read on several websites means nothing like what "Liberal" and "Conservative" mean to me.

Quite simply, the way I have always known it was that if you were a Liberal, you support a Liberal interpretation of the Constitution. This means that the gray areas in the Constitution are interpreted to mean that the Gov't can do these things. If you are a Conservative, you believe that if it ain't in the Document, then they don't have permission to do it.

I am a Conservative, according to my understanding. I guess this would more accurately make me a "Constitutional Conservative."

So, all in all, I guess I am an "Independent."

Wes

[Danimal]

Libertarians always remind me of teenagers. They are quick to remind everyone about freedom, but they are conspicuously silent when it comes to discussing responsibilities.

Our nation requires both, and neither can stand alone.

[Blain]

Libertarianism is the only hope this country has!

[Mark Tyson]

Libertarianism is not a practical solution to society's problems. Their blind faith in the market to solve all problems ignores externalities spawned by the market itself(like pollution), and services that cannot be made profitable(like cleaning slums). While libertarians claim that their beliefs are more in line with the views of the founding fathers, the framers were too pragmatic to be modern libertarians.

[Glock Glockler]

Danimal,

Do tell. How are we being irresponsible by insisting that we not be forced into a govt. sponsored retirement ponzi scheme, or by being against an income tax which necessitates the govt spying and looking for ways to prosecute it's own people, or by believing that I should not be punished because my neighbor cannot handle his_____ (insert drug of choice)?

[Blain]

Their blind faith in the market to solve all problems ignores externalities spawned by the market itself(like pollution),

Anyone who knows anything about LP theory knows that they take pollution into account.

[Standing Wolf]

I'm a Libertarian at heart who's been voting Republican for years. Considering the actual record of the Republican party and it's verifiable accomplishments, I may very well return to voting Libertarian. I see less and less difference between the Republicrats and the Demicans.

[AZLibertarian]

My moniker says it all.

I used to be a R, but Bush41 cured me of that. Bush43 is much better than his dad, but far from perfect. I believe that many of the modern successful R's were acting as Libertarians at the moments of their greatest success...Goldwater-"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice"; Reagan-"Big Government is part of the problem--not the solution"; Gingrich-'Contract with America' was a largely libertarian document. If the Republican Party would only realize this, I believe they could end the stalemates that frustrate them now. The problem is that libertarian R politicos end up believing they must compromise with the D's in order to get anything at all done, and they end up no better than any of them. The sad truth is that both parties are intent on increasing the power of government over the individual, regardless of the differences in their rhetoric.

I vote Libertarian every chance I get. I can't tell you how many years I voted for a R who ended up disappointing me. I now vote my heart, but I don't have any real expectation that I'll ever see a Libertarian in any major office.

[dustind]

Aren't Libertarians in favor of closing the borders until they get the rest of their plan acomplished?

As for those of you who are afraid to vote for Libertarians because you do not trust the free market.(I fit in there too, in the case of monopolies, etc) I would not worry because the government can not get smaller without us noticing, it only gets bigger that way. There will always be the other two parties to make it bigger or to fight any bad ideas the libertarians have. Libertarians have an uphill battle to decrease the government, I do not see any slippery slope going on there.

Also why not support them now? Dont you want the government to take atleast a few big steps that direction? I will support them until we get to privatising the commons and the roads. (something most libertarians are against)

EDIT: Mopar, why not join the free state, there will be jobs available in any state. Some states many run short on tech jobs (a high % of free staters, myself included) but the rest should be fine. You do not really need money saved up to move.

[telomerase]

>Aren't Libertarians in favor of closing the borders until they get the rest of their plan acomplished?

All Libertarians believe that you can't have both the Welfare State and open borders. Most of us favor eliminating the Welfare State instead of building a Berlin Wall around the US; but it's clear that we can't have the whole Third World move here and collect welfare.

[Moparmike]

Personally, I am for closing the borders (except at designated entry points, not like we have now) for a short time. Most likely less than 5 years.

I would join the FSP, but for now I need to finish college. However, I have talked to LP about starting a U of Ark college libertarians. They love the idea, as I am the only one who has contacted them about it. Now, I just need to find the time to execute such an idea.

I personnaly would like to run for an office on my city council. However, I cant. I would never be elected because of the political leanings, scratch that, severe listing to port of my ward. They would find out what I wanted to do for my district and have cows and calfs.:eek:

Like I said: If everyone who genuinely felt libertarian would vote that way instead of wallowing in pragmatism, we could get a libertarian candidate into office.

[NIGHTWATCH]

For me the choice is becoming more clear as time goes on. How can the Libertarian party be bad when it seeks to abide by our constitution without compromise? Isnt that what we need? Aggressive constitutional representation for the American people? And ONLY the American people.
They may not have all the answers but I trust that if they are looking to the constitution for answers and not the concerns of keeping a power base, we will be fine. That our future freedom will be secure. Freedom. Small government. Strong national defense. Strict defense of our borders and a total rebuilding of our DOI policies. A respect for the freedom and lifestyles of all Americans with individual responsability as a way of life.



Legalize drugs. Not the usual argument about the amount of money that would be freed up, but freedom. If someone abuses this freedom. Someone is harmed or killed, they do the time because they did the crime. Not all.

Gay Marriages. Im against it only because I am a believer but Im not God. Let people do what they want sexually as long as it does not involve children. Its none of our business. Period. If someone in that community abuses that freedom regarding children. They do the time because they did the crime. Not all.

Bottom line. We ALL need to respect our freedoms. If your against gay marriage, against legal drugs, than you are perpetuating a system of bias against your own particular freedom. In our case, GUNS.

Lets all be free. Lets all respect and defend all freedom. Lets make the government so small that it almost becomes a memory. Let "homeschooling" become the norm (mom or dad can be home now because 40% of their income is not going to uncle Sam). Lets build our military interests in our area of the world in defense of our nation. Lets build up our intelligence community to be the most feared and deadly the world has ever yet to see (we dont need American troops on foriegn soil, just more assassins on the payroll). Lets pull out of the U.N. Lets invest and use the many alternative fuels available to us. Lets let the world know that we choose freedom. :rolleyes:

The president will be speaking tonight on the cost of rebuilding Iraq. I heard a figure just now on the radio around 70 billiion dollars. :( We cant afford to "nation build". And why should we? I supported the War on terrorism. Always will, but we cant stop. Cant rebuild. I think that trying to fight a PC war is going to kill us in the end. If we ever act with our military , it should be to kill em all and let God sort em out. Crush them and move on to the next enemy. Not nation building but crushing. We must stop being the police.

Anyway, Im starting to get emotional again, but thats me. My gut tells me what is wrong. I dont need to watch the news or read a book. Im living it. I see it. As I know many of us do.

Scream and cry freedom boys and girls. Thats what it had better be about soon before we lose it to the world and those who are selling us to it. :mad:

[Marko Kloos]

Personally, I am for closing the borders (except at designated entry points, not like we have now) for a short time.

How?

I've asked this question a hundred times before, and I've never gotten a workable response from the "seal the borders" crowd.

How will you go about "closing" that border?

To recap: we have roughly 2,000 miles of land border with Mexico, and 6,000 miles with Canada. In addition to that, we have in excess of 10,000 miles of undefended coastline.

How are you going to "close" all that real estate? Every single grunt in every single combat division of the U.S.Army and Marine Corps would not be enough to cover that much front.

And even if you could turn the military into garrison troops, soldiers are trained to kill people and break stuff. How are they supposed to deal with trespassers? Are we back to the "machine-gun the wetbacks" proposals? Keep in mind that the inner-Gernam border was guarded by communist lackeys with dogs, minefields, barbed wire, and shoot-to-kill orders...and they weren't able to "seal" their border hermetically.

As long as the world's richest nation neighbors one of the world's poorest ones, you'll never be able to prevent illegal crossings, even if you turn this country into an armed camp, complete with pillboxes and minefields at the border. It is logistically, legally, technically, and logically impossible. When you talk about "closing the border", you might as well pontificate about building a ladder to the moon and make it out of popsicle sticks. An open society like the United States cannot be hermetically sealed.

[NIGHTWATCH]

HOW DO WE CLOSE THE BORDERS?

As I mentioned above, Bush is set tonight to discuss the cost of rebuilding Iraq. 70 billion. :rolleyes:

How many millions did he promise to Africa to fight AIDS? :(

Isnt the question more about financial committment to the American people? About following the constitution? Arent we in this mess because we ignored it?

If the priority of Washington now was our constitution and our freedom, we would, we could, build a wall on our borders that would make china's look like a curb. :what:

The answer is a LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENT.

[Moparmike]

Well, something needs to be done. Solving our problems with people adding to the problem will be counter productive.

I agree that reducing the incentive for a free-ride should be implemented immedeatly.

[SodaPop]

How are they supposed to deal with trespassers?


At some point this country is going to have to consider these people to be invaders.

This country is basically being raped by immigrants from Mexico. No, we don't have to machine gun those that are crossing the borders, but we do have to let these people know that there is nothing here (in the United States) for them except a 'return ticket' if they are found without valid visas.

Not giving health benefits or drivers licenses, or leaving water out for them, while they cross the borders would have more of an impact on immigration than sealing the borders.

And even if you could turn the military into garrison troops, soldiers are trained to kill people and break stuff.



There have been documented shoot-outs with border patrols. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an AC130 opening up on a foreign troops that have crossed its borders. That's what the military is for.... to protect the homeland from invaders. America is pretty lucky it has the Pacific and Atlantic ocean on each side of her. I personally think that's the one of the biggest reasons for America's complacency with foreign policy.

An AC-130 with night vision and thermal imaging could cover more ground than any garrison.

We can do better.




WARNING!!!!!!!

We have fought WARS with Mexico in the past!!

Cruse Bustamante is a pretty scarey dude and with people like him in high places, and out of hand immigration problem, this country would end up with a Civil War/Secession scenario with our Southwestern States.

Mexico has almost gone communist in the past and we have to be aware of the fact its a third world country with third world problems.

[Joe Demko]

I'm a libertarian by default because I trust neither the Dems or Reps. The Libertarians fall flat on a number of things, however; those weak points all are based on their fervent belief that the market and private sector will handle everything.
Consider food inspection. Before it became the law of the land, adulterated/tainted food was very common. Old cookbooks actually assume that sugar will be adulterated! Frankly, I think it is better for producers to be subject to inspection and regulation before they get a chance to poison some folks. Same-same on pollution. Eliminate public schooling? Sure. That's a great way move the US another step towards 3rd world nationhood. List one 1st world nation that doesn't have and never had public education.

[MrAcheson]

I don't have a problem replacing public schooling with a regulated voucher system. Repealing mandatory schooling entirely would be folly.

[Mark Tyson]

I seriously doubt we'd be a superpower with a vibrant economy without some kind of public education for those who can't afford the market price. Lots of countries have very good public education systems, too. I also think the government plays an important role keeping our food, air and water safe. Libertarians tend to be against most government regulation in these areas, so I can't be a libertarian, I have to be a liberal. Not foaming at the mouth liberal or anything, I just think the government can help people out sometimes.

[NIGHTWATCH]

Government has its place. And I think as the Libertarian party matures, it will be more flexable on many mainstream establishments. BUT......I also believe that the Libertarian party has figured out that "We the People" have all the information and provocation we need. Its about action. Not discussion. We need to take back our country and freedom from government. Either politically or by way of revolution.

I was listening to the "Sean Hannity" show today. I like him, but I realized that he and every other so called "conservative" talk show host are all apart of the machine. Government control. He just loves Bush and the republican party.

I love my country and my constitution. :cool:

The Libertarian party is the party of freedom. LIMITED GOVERNMENT. And I think it will eventually gain ground with Americans that are tired of DEALING WITH A GOVERNMENT, DEM OR REPUBLICAN, THAT IS OUT OF CONTROL. :mad:

[Gordon Fink]

Those of you bashing the Libertarian Party may want to actually read the party platform first.

http://www.lp.org/issues/

Then you may bash away as informed fools rather than as ignorant fools. :D

I’m kidding … if only because I know that Marko is right. :(

~G. Fink

[Chris Rhines]

Mandantory education?

Does that mean that someone gets to force me to go to school, and kill me if I decide not to?

Just asking...

- Chris

[Waitone]

I think it incredibly arrogant of government to claim that it (government) has more of an interest in the education of a child than I do as the freakin' kid's parent.

I object to government education because I consider education to be essentially a religious act. Mandatory state education is forcing me to subject my children to what I consider to be an antagonistic religion.

The private sector can educate children better and for cheaper than the state. If some kids fail to get an education, what business is it of the state? Seems to me the parents ought to be keel hauled. We got in the mess we are in because some tap the government to be a standin parent.

[Mark Tyson]

Well I think society as a whole does have an interest in an educated population. That kid will eventually be an employee, a citizen, a voter, a jurist. He/she may serve in the armed forces or do any number of things that require an educated person capable of critical thinking.

But I wouldn't throw someone in jail for not sending their kid to public school. If they want to home school, that's fine with me; it's not the end of the Republic.

[Cactus]

Thanks for the link Gordon! It shows some of the inconsistancies and incongruities of the Libertarians.

Take education for example. The Libertarian platform calls for the elimination of public education and implies that all parents can send their children to private schools. How will lower income people pay for this private education? Through tax credits! Only one problem. Libertarians call for the elimination of income taxes. This also ignores the current situation where lower income people already pay NO income taxes.

Since we have now established that the poor already pay no taxes and would continue to pay no taxes under a Libertarian agenda, there is NO tax credit for the poor to pay for the education of their children. Therefore the children of the poor (the vast majority of them, at least) will be condemned to continued poverty. So much for promoting the general welfare!

Then there is the Libertarian position on pollution. They seem to blame it entirely on the government. They infer that if the government were to become minimal, that the environment would suddenly become pristene. This flies in the face of history! Prior to the EPA and the environmental laws established in the 1960's and 1970's, our environment was in deplorable condition. The air was much more polluted than it is today. There were actual cases of rivers catching on fire because of the huge amounts of chemicals in the water. This is simply either ignorance of history or a delibrate attempt to obscure the facts.

The Libertarian Party as it stands today, will NEVER gain any national power. An unintended consequence of our founding fathers is that America works as a two party system. In order for any political party to be granted power they must appeal to a large percentage of the population. America does this with coalition parties, whereas European nations do it with coalition governments. This means that any party with a rigid ideology, such as the current Libertarians or Greens, will never become a political force.

Look at the Presidential elections, Libertarians typically garner roughly 0.5% of the vote. This is an insignifigant number, even less than the Greens, whose platform is pure socialist. Why should people who agree 50% of the time whith the Libertarians, vote for them when the Libertarians demand total adherance to their positions? Libertarians need to court people who have a general agreement with many of their positions, not the few that follow in lock step!

Do you see the problem? How many people do you agree with 100% of the time? Not many I guess! Everything in life is a compromise. When I was looking for a woman to marry, I wanted her to be built like Carmen Electra, look like Halle Berry, have a mind like Condelisa Rice, sing like Sarah Evans, have Oprahs bank account and make love like a pro! Well, five out of six ain't bad :D , but it's still a compromise.

And if you ever want to make a change in the direction of this nation, political compromises will have to be made as well. This is as much an inalienable fact as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

[SodaPop]

Lots of countries have very good public education systems, too.

Doesn't Cuba have one of the highest literacy rates in the world?

[USAFA]

Why the fixation on funding government through taxes? How do corporations fund themselves? By offering services. What services does our country have to offer?
I just think that somehow our society has become fixated on the idea of taxation because its too easy.
Just my two cents worth.

[Mark Tyson]

We use taxes because some essential services can't be turned into profitable enterprises.

[Hutch]

I speculate that if it really is an essential service, it would be profitable to provide it.

[Chris Rhines]

Hutch, you took the words right out of my mouth.

I probably ought to mention that little thing about a mandantory service not really being a service... The auto dealership has never delivered a brand new Civic Hybrid to my driveway, refused to take it back when I protested that I have a perfectly good Volvo, then garnished my wages to pay the fifty-grand price tag. Somehow, the government does get away with this. Even stranger, some people find this acceptable.

- Chris

[Moparmike]

Chris, forgive me but I dont understand the "garnishing wages" part of your post and how the government forces "green" vehicles upon us. I might look at it again in a few hours/days and have a lightbulb appear hovering over my head, but for now I am kinda clueless. A breif explanation is needed.

Also, who would agree with such process? What bereft-of-logic-and-horse-sense idiot would agree with such a retarded idea?

Thanks,

[BigG]

Practically speaking, I think a snowball has a better chance in Hades than a libertarian has of winning any significant office any time soon. Especially when I read some of the "National Enquirer" worthy articles I read posted here from time to time. Sorry, jmho! :uhoh:

[Chris Rhines]

Moparmike -

It was an analogy (and a fairly clever one, I thought. Serves me right...)

Most government services are provided to us, the citizens, without our consent. Public highways, for example, are available for me whether I ever use them or not. Same with gov't schools, gov't court systems, et cetera. And whether I use them or not, taxes are deducted from my paycheck every two weeks to fund them.

Even worse, in many places government programs have driven competing private services out of the market through price-fixing and other monopolistic business practices.

This is tantamount to a car dealer forcing you to buy a car (that you don't want, such as a Civic Hybrid) at gunpoint, and then adding insult to injury by charging a ridiculous price for it. Oh, and throwing you in jail if you decide not to pay.

Also, who would agree with such process? What bereft-of-logic-and-horse-sense idiot would agree with such a retarded idea? Good question. ;)

Must...resist...sarcastic...comment...

- Chris

[Mark Tyson]

The government can't run on donations and charity. The power to tax is right there in the constitution. Do you want to do away with those highway systems that you didn't pay for and don't use? Let's see how fast the infrastructure in this country can fall apart without taxes paying for maintenance and upkeep. I don't think you'll be able to find someone willing to build his own cross country highway and rail system. You may not use the highways, but I'll bet you benefit indirectly from an economy that depends on reliable transportation. Even isolated country communities have to ship at least some of their food, machine parts and other goods in from far away these days.

Similarly, private education is going to be hard pressed to make a profit educating kids in broken down inner cities and remote rural areas where parents don't have lots of money.

[Chris Rhines]

The government can't run on donations and charity. Why not? Although I'm on the record as advocating the elimination of government, I would be okay with a government that was so minimal as to be able to run on donations. OTOH, if it turned out that the government could not run on donations, then morally the government must cease to exist. Necessity is not a justification for theft.

The power to tax is right there in the constitution. I don't care.

Do you want to do away with those highway systems that you didn't pay for and don't use? It's not so much that I want to do away with the highway system; for a government boondoggle it works fairly well. What I resent is being forced at gunpoint to pay for it if I don't use it.

Let's see how fast the infrastructure in this country can fall apart without taxes paying for maintenance and upkeep. Although I'm no fan of a chaotic breakdown of human society, I'm less of a fan of coercive taxation. Like I said before, necessity is not a justification for theft.

I don't think you'll be able to find someone willing to build his own cross country highway and rail system. There are enough private roads in this country for me to be very confident that you are wrong.

You may not use the highways, but I'll bet you benefit indirectly from an economy that depends on reliable transportation. Doesn't matter. If I can't opt out of a service, then I can't morally be forced to pay for it.

Similarly, private education is going to be hard pressed to make a profit educating kids in broken down inner cities and remote rural areas where parents don't have lots of money. You know, I think I'm going to make it my .sig: Necessity is not a justification for theft.

- Chris

[telomerase]

>private education is going to be hard pressed to make a profit educating kids in broken down inner cities

And of course the government schools do such a fine job with the inner-city children. And the more money they spend the more effective they are, which is why the Washington DC schools are so good (at $17,000 dollars per pupil per year).

Most of the Chinese postdocs in my lab were educated for under 500 dollars per year in little tinroofed shack schools. Most "poor" American could afford to spend five times that even now (and remember, in this discussion we're talking about a country where the working poor are allowed to keep their own money.)

Once again, remember that Americans give $150 billion to nonprofits now, while carrying an enormous tax burden. We could easily afford to give several times that if there were no compulsory programs.

In the early 1900s, Americans collected private donations for battleships... (and they didn't even sell advertising on the side of the thing!)

[Moparmike]

Chris, you know that lightbulb I was talking about....it crashed on my head because what you posted should have made sense the first time. I was trying to wrap my brain around your post literally instead of metaphorically:o :banghead: .

Taxes and infrastructure. Should be paid for by a small percentage of sales tax (for the tourists who use it) and mostly thru state and local stuff. The power to tax income was not given to the Fed.gov, it was given to the state.us. I dont mind paying a usage tax for local roads, schools and infrastructure because I use the things. Otherwise, it is .gov sponsored robbery.

[telomerase]

Things tend to get heated when people talk about stealing more of each other's money to do good works :D

Just want to empasize that I appreciate that the limited-government folk's hearts are in the right place. (And I certainly hope that someday you actually discover a way to limit government metastasis; have you tried telomerase inhibitors?)

Just to keep some perspective, we're all doomed by Global Cooling anyway (unless we can release more CO2):

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1395/GlobalWarmingArticle.pdf

[Glock Glockler]

Do you want to do away with those highway systems that you didn't pay for and don't use?

Simply allow the users of the highway to fund the highways directly and cease all tax subsidies to roads and the problems go away.

Let's see how fast the infrastructure in this country can fall apart without taxes paying for maintenance and upkeep.

Why not fund infrastructure through voluntary user fees as opposed to coercive taxation?

You may not use the highways, but I'll bet you benefit indirectly from an economy that depends on reliable transportation.

Ok, but why can't the cost of those roads just be added to the price I pay for whatever goods and services I purchase as opposed to coming from my tax dollars? That's how business works, but that's just too simple for govt.

Similarly, private education is going to be hard pressed to make a profit educating kids in broken down inner cities and remote rural areas where parents don't have lots of money.

Is there a Chinese buffet in your town, there are about 4 in mine, every town seems to at least have 2? You can get an all you can eat a meal for under $7 and sometimes under $6, and the amazing thing is that we have a relatively free market in food production, just as we do in tech and look how affordable PCs are. Maybe if the govt backed off on taxes, economic strangulation, and regulation of schools you'd find them being able to produce quality education at an affordable price.

Why is it that you have economy products being sold to tap into the market of people without a lot of money? I can buy an economy gun, an economy car, and economy food, why can't the govt produce economy education? The actual cost is takes them to produce substandard education (and maybe decent indoctrination) is tremendous, yet we have some of our best minds coming from home schooling at minimal cost.

Therefore the children of the poor (the vast majority of them, at least) will be condemned to continued poverty. So much for promoting the general welfare!

I fail to see how it's in my welfare to be forced at gunpoint to pay for a service for someone else, but I guess society benefits when one portion of it is made to be the cash cow for another part of it:rolleyes:

There were actual cases of rivers catching on fire because of the huge amounts of chemicals in the water. This is simply either ignorance of history or a delibrate attempt to obscure the facts

Who owns those rivers? It's kinda hard to enforce property rights when no one/everyone owns something. I don't see too many private estates in the condition that govt lands are.

Consider food inspection. Before it became the law of the land, adulterated/tainted food was very common. Old cookbooks actually assume that sugar will be adulterated! Frankly, I think it is better for producers to be subject to inspection and regulation before they get a chance to poison some folks. Same-same on pollution.

Perhaps, but is govt the best mechanism for accomplishing this? The FDA and DEA seem to do a great job of keeping life saving drugs off the market and inflating the cost of the ones that do get to market, why is it that underwriters laboritories doesn't function like that? Why should the govt be able to tell me what drugs and surgeries I am allowed to purchase? If I am a free man I should be able to take whatever drugs I want, and I should not be prohibited from being able to do so because they claim to be protecting me.

Eliminate public schooling? Sure. That's a great way move the US another step towards 3rd world nationhood. List one 1st world nation that doesn't have and never had public education.

You aren't confusing corelation with causality are you? Has you town ever been attacked by elephants? Maybe it's due to the magic rocks in your town, perhaps we should sell some of those rocks to a town in Africa that has been stampeeded. Why is it that the best education is produced by non-govt schools?

[Erik]

Just a thought:

The Libertarian Party would best serve itself by winning a few local elections in each state prior to the spending associated with mounting any national campaigns.

[Erik]

...

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Glock Glockler:
Simply allow the users of the highway to fund the highways directly and cease all tax subsidies to roads and the problems go away.

That IS how highways are paid for on the federal level. The tax on fuel for your car/truck goes to build new highways and maintain existing ones. In my state, no general funds are used for roads, it all comes from gas taxes and vehicle licenses, I believe most states are like this.

Federal highways were started for two main reasons. Interstate commerce and defense. These are both explicitly outlined in the Constitution as federal responsibilities.

Originally posted by Glock Glockler:
Ok, but why can't the cost of those roads just be added to the price I pay for whatever goods and services I purchase as opposed to coming from my tax dollars? That's how business works, but that's just too simple for govt.

Great! Problem solved. You don't want to pay for highways? Then don't drive or own a car. Live in a cave and make your own clothes out of your own sheep and the cotton you grow. You can also grow all of your own food. Just make sure you don't buy ANYTHING, because it was delivered by a truck that payed a fuel tax and drove on the roads YOU don't want to pay for.

Originally posted by Glock Glockler:
"There were actual cases of rivers catching on fire because of the huge amounts of chemicals in the water. This is simply either ignorance of history or a delibrate attempt to obscure the facts"

Who owns those rivers? It's kinda hard to enforce property rights when no one/everyone owns something. I don't see too many private estates in the condition that govt lands are.

It doesn't matter who owned the river, it was private business that was dumping the pollutants into the water. It was the government that passed laws that ended this practice, so apparently it was quite simple for the government to enforce it's property rights!

As for "private estates" not being in poor condition, come out to my neck of the woods and I'll show you all kinds of "private estates" that are private dumps! But then again, as a Libertarian, I'm sure you have no problem with that, no matter how much it damages adjacent neighbors.

Our government was never set up for individual rights to trump all, which it sounds like you desire. Government is derived to balance individual liberties vs. group protection.

[Glock Glockler]

That IS how highways are paid for on the federal level. The tax on fuel for your car/truck goes to build new highways and maintain existing ones.

The money goes to the Feds and is then distributed to the states, and the Feds can also restrict those funds if the state doesn't alter it's internal policies to what the Feds want. Thanks but no thanks. And most states are not like this, my state of NH is but there are plenty of states that use gas taxes and car registration fees for general funds.

Federal highways were started for two main reasons. Interstate commerce and defense. These are both explicitly outlined in the Constitution as federal responsibilities.

The interstate commerce clause was sold as nothing more than a prohibition on trade wars between the states, even that being the case I fail to see how regulating such commerce can be implied to building roads that might be used for that commerce. I can sympathize with the Federal highway system for National defense purposes but they should not be able to restrict funds for any reason other than that state not paying it's tax burden.

Great! Problem solved. You don't want to pay for highways? Then don't drive or own a car. Live in a cave and make your own clothes out of your own sheep and the cotton you grow. You can also grow all of your own food. Just make sure you don't buy ANYTHING, because it was delivered by a truck that payed a fuel tax and drove on the roads YOU don't want to pay for.

I suggest you reread my post because it is painfully obvious that you didn't understand my message or that you have no idea how business and economics function. The costs incurred in producing a good are paid for by the consumer when they buy it. That means that if all roads are funded via user fees instead of taxes those that buy purchase goods and services that are shipped on those roads will be the ones paying for it.

There is no need to directly tax someone for roads, if I buy a some ammunition that is shipped on a road, I will be paying part of the tolls as they will be added to the cost of that ammunition. Whether or not I travel on a road every day or I live in a cave is irrelevant, I will be paying for what I use and that burden will not be forcefully shifted to someone else.

It doesn't matter who owned the river, it was private business that was dumping the pollutants into the water. It was the government that passed laws that ended this practice, so apparently it was quite simple for the government to enforce it's property rights!

Seeing how the govt owns the rivers to begin with and it was allowing such polluting by way of short-term leases without responsibility for damages as well as liability caps, it really doesnt impress me that they later take some tolken measure to limit pollution. The US govt is the country's #1 polluter, causing more damage to the environment that #2-7 combined. If you tried to dump a truckload of poisonous chemicals on my property you'd be greeted with lead, but companies that are chummy with the govt get to pollute the hell out of the govt lands, which will be de-contaminated (if possible) at taxpayer expense, which will also be exponentially greater than the cost of properly disposing of the waste.

As for "private estates" not being in poor condition, come out to my neck of the woods and I'll show you all kinds of "private estates" that are private dumps! But then again, as a Libertarian, I'm sure you have no problem with that, no matter how much it damages adjacent neighbors.

Yeah, we have our share of private lands that look like crap, usually occupied by low-class white trash, I don't like it but it's the exception and not the rule. If you want to compare the condition of the average privately owned property to the average govt owned property I'd bet lage amounts of money that the govt land is in far worse condition. Why trust them with so much land when they take such bad care of it?

Our government was never set up for individual rights to trump all, which it sounds like you desire. Government is derived to balance individual liberties vs. group protection.

A group is nothing more than a bunch of individuals, last time I checked additional rights are not gained simply because you have several people along with you. But then again, maybe the govt should start banning guns to protect the public, for group protection, that is.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Glock Glockler:
There is no need to directly tax someone for roads, if I buy a some ammunition that is shipped on a road, I will be paying part of the tolls as they will be added to the cost of that ammunition.

I coulda' swore that is exactly what I said! :rolleyes: The gas tax IS the same as a users fee or toll. If you don't use gas, you don't pay the tax! If you don't buy ammo, you don't pay the gas tax paid to ship it!

Originally posted by Glock Glockler:
Seeing how the govt owns the rivers to begin with and it was allowing such polluting by way of short-term leases without responsibility for damages as well as liability caps, it really doesnt impress me that they later take some tolken measure to limit pollution.

What leases? The government never "granted" anyone the right to pollute. And I would think that you, as a Libertarian, would be aghast at the thought of the government restricting anyone the access to a navigable waterway. These companies were dumping into the rivers 100 years before anyone knew that it was causing any problem. I realize that our founding fathers were very far sighted, but I seriously doubt that they could have forseen the damages caused by Monsanto or other large companies dumping pollutants.

You speak of the government taking "tolken measure to limit pollution"? Don't you Libertarians complain about the draconian environmental laws of the government strangling business? :confused: You can't have it both ways!

Originally posted by Glock Glockler:
... but companies that are chummy with the govt get to pollute the hell out of the govt lands, which will be de-contaminated (if possible) at taxpayer expense, which will also be exponentially greater than the cost of properly disposing of the waste.

Not true! If a company is still in business, and can be identified as being the polluter, they are required to pay the costs of clean up. As for requiring a company to clean up pollution they created prior to current laws, are you calling for ex post facto application of the laws? :what: That would be unconstitutional!

Originally posted by Glock Glockler:
If you want to compare the condition of the average privately owned property to the average govt owned property I'd bet lage amounts of money that the govt land is in far worse condition. Why trust them with so much land when they take such bad care of it?

I'm not sure how many National Forests you have in NH, but we have a few here in WA. If you look at the condition of National Forest lands compared to private forest lands such as Plum Creek, the National Forest lands are in MUCH better shape. The same could be said of Mt. Rainier National Park compared to private campgrounds. Sorry, but that dog just don't hunt!

Originally posted by Glock Glockler:
But then again, maybe the govt should start banning guns to protect the public, for group protection, that is.

It is perfectly constitutional to RESTRICT gun ownership for the protection of society. Felons and minors are legally restricted from gun ownership. As for banning them, sorry, little thing called the Second Amendment. Can you show me the amendment that states that you DON'T have to pay gas taxes?

[Marko Kloos]

Felons and minors are legally restricted from gun ownership. As for banning them, sorry, little thing called the Second Amendment.

Please show me the footnote to the Bill of Rights that says we can restrict felons and minors from exercising their basic human rights. Are they inalienable, or are they not? Can we restrict felons and minors from speaking freely in public, forbid them from exercising their religion freely, and quarter soldiers in their homes? Do felons and minors lose their right to jury trial?

If you treat the Second Amendment different from all the others, aren't you doing exactly what the anti-gunners do?

Can you show me the amendment that states that you DON'T have to pay gas taxes?

The Constitution is a restriction of government, not private citizens. The Bill of Rights safeguards the rights of citizens from government infringement. Our government has specific and enumerated powers: it has to be listed in the Constitution as a legitimate function, or our government may not engage in it. In other words, the Constitution and its Amendments don't prohibit the private citizen from doing anything (or give him permission to do stuff), they prohibit the government from doing certain things (and gives it permission to do other, very specific things).

Instead of asking, "Where does the Constitution say you don't have to do XYZ?", you have to ask, "Where in the Constitution does it say that government can force me to do XYZ?"

[Mark Tyson]

Minors are seen as not having the full rights of citizenship. They cannot vote, join the military, drink alcohol and are treated differently than adults in the criminal justice system. But I think minors should be able to own guns. Lots of kids grow up with guns. In fact, I think we'd be a better society if everyone was much more familiar with firearms.

The framers did not want to arm violent criminals when they wrote the constitution, they wanted to make sure that the general population - the militia - were armed. I do not think that the founders would have any problem with laws that prevent the insane and mentally challenged from obtaining guns. These are still people with rights - they can't be tortured - but their rights are restricted.

I also think that there should be some kind of restriction on convicted violent felons; at the least, they shouldn't be able to own guns for a while. I wouldn't object to them keeping one in the home for protection, but I'm aprehensive about someone who has committed a violent crime carrying a firearm, at least for a long time. They are being deprived of their right to bear arms with full due process of law; not arbitrarily disarmed for no reason at all.

But then again, the congress agreed with Markos' point of view back after the civil war. When a bill was proposed to disarm those who had rebelled against the US it was rejected because they felt it was an infringement on their rights. The law that eventually passed disbanded Southern militias that were trampling on the righrts of newly freed blacks, but did not disarm individual former rebels - and these were people who had recently fought against the United States!

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Marko Kloos:
Please show me the footnote to the Bill of Rights that says we can restrict felons and minors from exercising their basic human rights. Are they inalienable, or are they not?

NO rights are absolute. There are restrictions on all of them. You have no right to libel or slander even though the First Amendment does not restrict it. You have no right to incite a riot or threaten the Presidents life even though the First Amendment makes no mention of them either.

The Constitution explicitly recognizes the restriction of certain rights based on age. One must reach a certain age before being able to run for congress or president, for example.

No where does the Constitution mention a military draft, yet congress restricts virtually ALL of a persons rights when they are drafted. This is because the courts have always held that rights may be restricted during a time of national crisis.

Originally posted by Marko Kloos:
Our government has specific and enumerated powers: it has to be listed in the Constitution as a legitimate function, or our government may not engage in it.

No where in the Constitution does it state that our government is only allowed to pass laws specifically named by the Constitution, it forbids congress from passing laws specifically FORBIDDEN in the Constitution. Our founding father passed many laws and acts that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution; such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, the founding of the Library of Congress in 1800, the U.S. Military Academy in 1802, the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1804, the construction of the Cumberland Road in 1806 and many others. I would think that if the Constitution ONLY allowed specified powers, these men who wrote and were present during the adoption of our Constitution, would surely have not passed these items.

Section 8 [1] states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes (sorry Glock, you ARE required to pay gas taxes), duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States".

Section 8 [18] states that congress has the power: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,...".

Nowhere in the Constitution does it define "general welfare". That is up for the interpritation of congress. If it is felt that congress passes laws that cover specifically forbiden areas, then the courts may strike them down.

Our founding fathers were wise enough to realize that they could not foresee every imagable possibility that we may encounter and made the Constitution intentionally vague in order for congress to react to changing conditions. This is not the "living Constitution" theory proposed by some liberals. That theory states that the courts may eliminate enumerated rights or grant new rights without going through the required amendment process.

People may not like some of the laws on the books, but unless the courts rule otherwise, they ARE constitutional and can only be changed legislatively. To rant that every law you dislike is unconstitutional, simply makes one look extreme and cause people to not take them seriously.

Originally posted by Mark Tyson:
But then again, the congress agreed with Markos' point of view back after the civil war. When a bill was proposed to disarm those who had rebelled against the US it was rejected because they felt it was an infringement on their rights.

I believe this was because almost all of the rebels had been granted amnesty by President Johnson in 1865 and had their rights restored.

[dustind]

Rights can be absolute, but still end when they directly harm others.

Is there anything wrong with taxing gas to be used as an user fee for roads instead of tolls?(more expensive, complete, and anoying)

I still recommend voting libertarian, which direction do you want the country to move right now? Should we continue on the direction the dems and repubs are taking us, or take a few steps to libertarianism and then see how we are? Why argue and get into heated debates over some of the farthest most radical ideas? It is an uphill battle and no one wants to fight for those ideas, so why get our shorts in a bunch over it?

I do not like some of the ideas at the end of the libertarian road, but from where we are now they are going in the right direction, imho.

[telomerase]

>No where in the Constitution does it state that our government is only allowed to pass laws specifically named by the Constitution, it forbids congress from passing laws specifically FORBIDDEN in the Constitution.

Well, there are the 9th and 10th Amendments, which would seem to restrict the scope of Congressional powers.

Of course there are plenty of laws that are specifically forbidden in the Constitution anyway...

[Cactus]

Originally posted by telomerase:
"No where in the Constitution does it state that our government is only allowed to pass laws specifically named by the Constitution, it forbids congress from passing laws specifically FORBIDDEN in the Constitution."

Well, there are the 9th and 10th Amendments, which would seem to restrict the scope of Congressional powers.

Yes, I guess that would be another way of saying the exact same thing! :banghead:

[Glock Glockler]

NO rights are absolute

Sure they are, but you might not understand that a right ends where it infringes on the rights of another.

The Constitution explicitly recognizes the restriction of certain rights based on age.

Who cares what the Constitution says, we don't derive our rights from it? On the best of days it's a flawed attempt to put a philosophy into a working form of govt, on the worst days it's an intended statist document. If you want to discuss natural rights you'll have to do it outside the constitution.

I would think that if the Constitution ONLY allowed specified powers, these men who wrote and were present during the adoption of our Constitution, would surely have not passed these items.

You've hit the nail on the head why the Constitution is a statist document, it actually does allow a lot of nonsense you mentioned. This is just proof that the 55 delegates at Philadelphia (who were there illegally) were not all freedom loving folks and they had their own adgendas.

The framers did not want to arm violent criminals when they wrote the contitution

The framers were 55 men with different ideas, opinions, and adgendas who lived a very long time ago, how do you know what was going through their heads? Why should I care what they wanted, I care what I want? I do not want a govt because it's what a bunch of guys a few hundered years ago wanted, I want a govt that it put together logically and based upon reason, not convention.

but their rights are restricted.

Are their rights restricted or do they not have full rights to begin with?

sorry Glock, you ARE required to pay gas taxes

I never had a problem with this, just make sure that tax is a user fee going to pay for the roads I use, and don't put any type of a tax on my property to pay for roads.

It is perfectly constitutional to RESTRICT gun ownership for the protection of society

1- I can give a crap whether or not something is Constitutional, is status in regards to that does not make it right.

2 - No bans but restriction is ok, fine, we'll just restrict the posession to those that will prove themselves competant (to Federal standards) and to those who are not disposed to threatening "society" (read: the govt) so only the politically reliable will be packing.

What leases? The government never "granted" anyone the right to pollute

Many govt owned lands (about 40% of the country) are leased to private entities (usually those that are chummy with the govt and donate heavily to the right campaigns) and the liability on the use of that land is capped. If I'm only liable for $50 million it makes good business sense to pollute if it'll cost me $75 million to dispose of it properly, too bad the taxpayers have to pay to have it cleaned up.

I've gotta jet, I'll continue this post a bit later.

Thanks

[telomerase]

>Many govt owned lands (about 40% of the country) are leased to private entities (usually those that are chummy with the govt and donate heavily to the right campaigns) and the liability on the use of that land is capped. If I'm only liable for $50 million it makes good business sense to pollute if it'll cost me $75 million to dispose of it properly, too bad the taxpayers have to pay to have it cleaned up.

This is why I'm not impressed with most of the "Ecology" organizations. They spend a lot of time advocating more transfer of land out of private hands, instead of campaigning to stop damage by the BLM and Forest Service on the land they already have.

And unlike damage on private land, the government-owned land is destroyed for no net benefit. I don't think the planet would be better off without humanity, but it would be better off if all land was owned by people with a stake in its preservation:

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/human_extinction.htm

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Glock Glockler:
Who cares what the Constitution says...

I can give a crap whether or not something is Constitutional...

For the life of me I just can't figure out why the Libertarians only get 0.5% of the vote in the presidential elections every four years!:rolleyes:

[Chris Rhines]

It's mainly because the Libertarian Party (the national party, at least,) is more interesting in looking good than performing good.

Many of us, in turn, have come around to the "political action ain't going to get us any freer" mode of thought.


- Chris

[Mark Tyson]

That constitution that you don't give a crap about has given you and everyone else in this country political and economic opportunities unheard of in much of the world. The principles it laid out may not be the origin of our rights, but they do remind us of what those rights are. If there had been so second amendment we would be like Australia or Britain right now. If there were no bill of rights at all . . . you can just imagine.

You may regard yourself as a rugged individual who owes nothing to anyone, but in fact unless you live Unabomber style in the wilderness wearing the skins of animals you have raised or caught with hand made tools then you do owe something to society. You have benefited directly from an economic system that has thrived under our system of government. It's not just the road system either - the companies that ship the goods you consume utilize public utilities, their employees travel to business meetings on planes obeying FAA rules at airports administered by the FAA, imported goods are inspected by customs officials, etc. This is the twenty first century. Everything and everyone is becoming more and more interconnected. You cannot cut yourself off from the whole world. Because you benefit from government operations, you get part of the bill, along with the rest of us.

[Glock Glockler]

Cactus,

Could it be that most people will vote for someone that promises the most benies at the expense of others?

Aside from that, any Constitution is a means and not an end, one reason I don't understand philosophy of Constitutionalists. If having a lot of land in govt hands is a good or bad idea, it is so regardless of what the Constitution says.

[Mark Tyson]

The constitution is supposed to establish a set of rules for the government to obey in order to minimize the risk of the state doing something criminal or catastrophically stupid. It balances power among the branches of government, the states, and the people. Obviously, it doesn't always work, but I think things would be a lot worse if we had no constitution at all.

[Chris Rhines]

That constitution that you don't give a crap about has given you and everyone else in this country political and economic opportunities unheard of in much of the world. That Constitution that you seem so enamored with is a piece of paper. It cannot do anything by itself. It neither gives me rights, nor protects the ones I have. The rules and restrictions that the Constitution attempts to establish for the government are written by men, ones who have proved very falible. It contains a couple of good ideas and plenty of very bad ones.

Irregardless, I have yet to hear a good reason why my life should be dictated by some piece of paper.

You may regard yourself as a rugged individual who owes nothing to anyone, but...you do owe something to society. No, I don't, and any member of society who gets too pushy in trying to collect on my nonexistant obligations isn't going to like my response.

The only way that I can establish a debt to someone else is to agree to it in explicit terms, and I never made any such agreement with 'society' (whatever that is.) I may derive some benefit from living in this society, but that's entirely different then owing a debt to it.

- Chris

[Mark Tyson]

Can you imagine what this society would be like without a constitution? That 'piece of paper' is held in high regard by people in our society, people who base their actions on what it says. That's its prime function - to remind us what our rights are.

You admit you benefit from society, yet you are not obligated to it in any way?

Forget it. There's no point in arguing about this any more. Just keep in mind that you are debating on a medium - the internet - made possible by a defense department program paid for with tax dollars. In order to keep yourself ideologically pure I'm sure that you will never attend a public university, read a book at a public library, use medicine inspected by the FDA, use a GPS device utilizing a satelite put in orbit by government, or eat at a restaurant regulated by the food inspector.

[telomerase]

>Can you imagine what this society would be like without a constitution?

It's getting easier all the time... but yes, the Constitution did limit government to some degree, but only when people read it and respected it.

> Just keep in mind that you are debating on a medium - the internet - made possible by a defense department program paid for with tax dollars. In order to keep yourself ideologically pure I'm sure that you will never attend a public university, read a book at a public library, use medicine inspected by the FDA, use a GPS device utilizing a satelite put in orbit by government, or eat at a restaurant regulated by the food inspector.

All of those things could be done privately. Be reasonable here; in a country where government takes something like 40% of the GNP, of course it builds some things. But that doesn't mean that none of these things would have been built by the private sector (are you seriously saying that no one could think of the Internet unless they worked for a government agency?). This is like a Chinese peasant saying: "of course we need the Party! How else would we get our rice ration?"

[Chris Rhines]

Can you imagine what this society would be like without a constitution? Probably much like it is now. So what?

That 'piece of paper' is held in high regard by people in our society, people who base their actions on what it says. And those people can keep on keeping on, for all I care. I'll continue to base my actions on ethical first principles, the Non-Aggression Principle in particular.

That's its prime function - to remind us what our rights are. And all this time, I thought that the prime function of the Constitution (and the one that it failed at most spectacularly) was to clearly establish the powers of the government.

You admit you benefit from society, yet you are not obligated to it in any way? Eggs-actly.

Permit me an analogy - let's say that my neighbor from across the street just dropped by with a couple jars of homemade hot sauce, which I love. I certainly appriecate my neighbor's actions (although my digestive system may disagree.) But, let's say that my neighbor comes over a few days later and asks me to loan him a thousand bucks. Am I obligated to loan him the money because of his earlier gift to me? Of course not. So it is with society in general. In fact, I would be much more likely to loan my neighbor the money than to loan it to some nebulous 'society', being as how I know my neighbors fairly well, I like them, and I know that they're good for the money.

Just keep in mind that you are debating on a medium - the internet - made possible by a defense department program paid for with tax dollars. You know, I'm starting to see the problem here - you have trouble drawing the distinction between government and society. Common problem, particularly among those in the left of the political spectrum (in my experience.)

- Chris

[Mark Tyson]

My mistake - when I said the 'constitution' I meant 'the bill of rights'. Yes, the constitution is supposed to establish rules for how government operates as you say, and the bill of rights is to protect our rights. Actually it was derided at the time it was adopted as a "parchment barrier" to tyranny - pretty much the same as your criticism. One reason it eventually passed was because they wanted it to remind people that they had these rights and establish a "bill of rights culture". I think that we have that today - a culture that holds constitutional rights in high regard.

My point is that I think we'd be in a lot worse shape if we had no constitution. People wouldn't be familiar with the phrase "cruel & unusual punishment" or "right to keep and bear arms" at all. Imagine how hard it would be then to fight for RKBA or any other right for that matter. Look at how much trouble the anti-drug war people have. Conservatives say "you don't have a constitutional right to use drugs" or something along those lines(ignoring the rather nebulous 9th and 10 amendments of course). Or look at the abolition and civil rights movements. Leaders of both movements used the language of the constitution ("all men are created equal . . .") when promoting their ideas.

[telomerase]

>My point is that I think we'd be in a lot worse shape if we had no constitution. People wouldn't be familiar with the phrase "cruel & unusual punishment" or "right to keep and bear arms" at all. Imagine how hard it would be then to fight for RKBA or any other right for that matter. Look at how much trouble the anti-drug war people have. Conservatives say "you don't have a constitutional right to use drugs" or something along those lines(ignoring the rather nebulous 9th and 10 amendments of course). Or look at the abolition and civil rights movements. Leaders of both movements used the language of the constitution ("all men are created equal . . .") when promoting their ideas.

I don't think anyone can argue with you, Mark. The British lost their rights a lot faster with their "unwritten Constitution" than we did with our parchment.

[dustind]

Shouldn't the people who fly pay the FAA. The people who make drugs pay the FDA. The people who buy devices that use GPS signals pay for those satalites.

[telomerase]

>Shouldn't the people who fly pay the FAA. The people who make drugs pay the FDA. The people who buy devices that use GPS signals pay for those satellites.

Of course. But if they were paying competing private organizations, they'd pay less for better products.

[Glock Glockler]

Gentlemen,

Don't get me wrong, I'm no anarchist, and I certainly do think that we've done better with the BoR and the Constitution than most, but I don't think that we're doing that great outside of comparisons to countries that are even more screwed up.

I don't think that I have to list all the tyrannical features of our govt, we all know what we're dealing with, so the Constitution either authorizes the govt we have now or it's been powerless to prevent it. I would have been quite content with a modified Articles of Confederation along the lines of the New Jersey plan. The Philadelphia convention was supposed to be about modifying the AoC, not scrapping it and adopting an entirely new form of govt.

So forgive me if I'm not grateful to the govt for screwing me over less than people in other countries. All the prosperity, innovation, and success we've had in this country, is it because of our govt or in spite of it?

[Waitone]

Is the implementation of the constitution and bill of rights perfect? Nope.

Is it possible to have a perfect government balancing individual rights with governance? Not this side of eternity.

Is what we have better than second place? By a long shot.

Is there any form of human government I prefer to the American system? Not that I know of.

Has the American system strayed from its original moorings? Yep.

Does that mean I should pick up my ball and go home? Nope.

Should I fight to re-establish the original intent and roll back the more odious provisions which are now in law? Oh, yea!