Libertarians

AZLibertarian

September 15, 2003, 12:21 AM

Any of you guy's Libertarians out there?
Yep. [Note the moniker]

...drop the drug legalization plank...
What most traditional (non)thinkers do is to equate the LP "drug legalization plank" with an endorsement of the use of what we now classify as illegal drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The non-thinkers routinely bring up the effect of drug use by children, yet children are prevented from doing all kinds of things that adults are free to do...vote, sign contracts, drive, consume alcohol, enlist in the miltary, etc.

Truthfully, the drug plank was difficult for me to swallow. But, today, I don't believe that anyone who really wants an illegal drug is prevented from getting it. There's some danger of getting ripped off by the criminal element who are in the business of providing these drugs, and the risk of being arrested. Yet the drug syndicates are doing billions of dollars a year. On the other side of the equation, the infrastructure associated with law enforcement--police, DEA, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, prisons, etc, etc, etc--and I end up wondering just how expensive it's become to slow down the prevelance of these drugs. I don't think the war on drugs is working well enough to justify the costs.

Using these drugs leads to unhappy, unhealthy, and unproductive lives. Yet I don't need the government to tell me about all this.

Tamara

September 15, 2003, 12:44 AM

The thing that most cripples the Libertarian party?

Most folks are all about not being told what to do, but have a hard time when they find out it means that they can't tell other people what to do, either. :uhoh:

Skunkabilly

September 15, 2003, 12:46 AM

The Republicans can stop complaining about me 'wasting my vote' and 'dividing the party' when they start standing up for my :cuss: rights!

Fiscal conservative, social libertarian here. Registered Libertarian but usually vote Republican for the very top office.

Blame me!

AZRickD

September 15, 2003, 12:52 AM

Tam is correct. the Demos want to protect some rights and deny the existence of others. Repubs want to protect the rights the Demos deny while they deny the rights the Demos protect. Problem is, both side are willing to use government force, or threat of force at gun point to get their way.

Back to the WoD.

One estimate puts the total annual expenditure for the WonSomeDrugs at $80-Billion at all levels of gubmint in the USA.

Interdiction, funding erratication programs across the globe, funding the Columbian counter-insurgency, law enforcment, judges, lawyers, jails.

Estimated amount of drugs "taken off the street?" About 5 to 7% each year.

If we can up the funding on the WoSDs to $1.6-Trillion per year, we might be able to get half of the drugs off the street, along with stomping out the remainder of our tenuous liberties.

Rick
Freedom's the answer. What's the question?

Demon440

September 15, 2003, 03:02 AM

the only thing I am not sure about it the open immigration. Anyone want to explan to me why it will work? I read what LP.org had to say about it under the issues section but it seemed a little vague.

ravinraven

September 15, 2003, 05:03 AM

I think it was d'Tocqueville [who cares about the spelling at this tme of day?] who studied our Constitution a long time ago and said something to the effect that "It will take men of courage and character to run such a government" Look at where we are. We are being led by Democrats of no character and Republicans of no courage. And look where we are being led.

Government of, by and for the people is one thing. Government for the sake of government is another. The drug war is a great example of gov't for gov't's sake. Of course, if they ever dropped that foolishness [I hate drugs] this county would be a ghost county. Our national industry up here is prisons. I think there are tons more prison guards than there are teachers and profs. 'Course teachers and profs are about as positive an influence on society as prison guards these days.

We need some control on actual criminals. We need some control such as everyone agreeing to drive on the same side of the road. But there is a wide fuzzy line between a society controlled for its own health and an enslaved society. Tyrants and wannabe tyrants get into that fuzzy area and keep pushing and streatching it into the totalitarian side of life. You can't see them working and all of a sudden the line is wider and fussier and your rights have been ground up in the process.

The natural form of government is tyranny or totalitarianism or whatever they call one-man [plus minions and/or Hitlary] rule. It was the first form of government when we dropped down out of the trees. The Alpha male said "This is the law." and it was. No matter how much progress individual rights make, we tend to drift back to totalitarianism if we neglect the gov't for a minute. Now we have the gov't schools teaching the wonders of letting the gov't make all your decisions. They teach that no one should "be all you can be." This is an ideal curriculum for creating a bunch of identical useful idiots.

"We're gonna do it to those guys for your kids" seems to be the rallying cry behind every rights grab. Too few see that "those guys" are us. Our kids are the next generation of "those guys."

We have a long fight to re-establish the Constitution and the BofR. The first step is making people aware that there is a problem. All I have to do is point out the slightest rights violation to any liberal "friend" and I get my name shouted at me very loudly. The guy then turns to whoever is present and tells them in a loud voice that I am for whatever bad behavior happens to be used as the excuse for the rights grab.

If we can't straighten this mess out by peaceful means, there are forces a-building that will correct the situation--to their satisfaction. But it won't be pleasant. Worse yet, there is no guarantee that the "forces" will re-establish the BofR. If a small group gets control, it could get a hell of a lot worse in a hurry.

ravinraven

lee n. field

September 15, 2003, 09:28 AM

Small "l" libertarian.

I find my political views becoming more complicated, more cynical and more pessimistic as I get older.

Deepdiver

September 15, 2003, 10:15 AM

What Skunkabilly said.

Oleg Volk

September 15, 2003, 10:17 AM

"Live and let live" libertarian here.

Danimal

September 15, 2003, 10:38 AM

I'm a Republican, and I've spent plenty of time criticizing the flaws of the Libertarian party. However, most of us Republicans are libertarian deep down inside. Except for the drug legalization and the open immigration thing, we agree on most policy issues. We really do like the libertarian ideas, and are often disappointed in the cowardace of our Republican officials.

However, most Libertarians (and I don't mean to offend) are politically inept. They are not people who understand how politics work. They have ideas, but no plan on implementing them. They have opinions about how things should be, but they don't have the knowledge or desire to learn how those things could be changed within the current system. You can't change the world by sitting in an open-air cafe, sipping a latte and wearing a black beret and sneering at everything. Likewise, if Libertarians were serious about doing something, they would start putting up candidates for local elective (and even non-partisan) offices, instead of shouting into the wind by pooling all their effort into a presidential or senatorial protest candidate. All politics is local, and until I start seeing local Libertarians make an sincere effort to become electable, they are never going to become a viable political force and give their good ideas a chance to be absorbed by the people. Political change starts by being elected. You can curse me for saying that, or curse the system for being that way, but it's true. In a democratic political system, you cannot accomplish anything without being elected.

cordex

September 15, 2003, 11:05 AM

Danimal
if Libertarians were serious about doing something, they would start putting up candidates for local elective (and even non-partisan) offices, instead of shouting into the wind by pooling all their effort into a presidential or senatorial protest candidate.
Around here, there were Libertarian candidates running for almost every local office last election.

The rest of your complaints were equally unfounded.

"Don't have a plan for implementing them" my rear end. Try having a conversation with one sometime ... they'll talk your ear off about their plans for implementing their ideas ... and frankly, their plans are generally far superior to the "let's just try to tweak the system and keep things pretty much the way they are" blither coming out of the two big parties.

Danimal

September 15, 2003, 11:24 AM

The proof is in the pudding, Cordex.

How many got elected? You are responding emotionally to a distinctly academic problem. If you don't get elected, you don't get to implement an agenda, at least in this political system. Just sitting around rubbing your hands with all the ideas they might have is simply not enough. They must be able to sell those ideas to the voting public. Now, bitter Libertarians may call the voting public stupid for not embracing their ideas, but it is a telling thing when Libertarians who can't get elected to city council or dog catcher decide instead to launch a presidential campaign. A sad fact of politics is that it takes more than good ideas to get elected. Until Libertarians acknowlege that and prove they have some grassroots support with some local victories that can move up the food chain, their credibility as a sincere political movement will always be in question.

rock jock

September 15, 2003, 11:42 AM

I have always been confused by the LP message on drugs. Do they want to do away with all drug laws or just those on the federal level? The latter I would agree with, the former I don't.

newman32

September 15, 2003, 02:43 PM

There's a move to get a bunch of libertarians to move to a state in large enough numbers to influence local elections. Interesting concept. Here's the link. http://freestateproject.org/index.htm

Scottmkiv

September 15, 2003, 02:44 PM

I'm a Libertarian too.

Poodleshooter

September 15, 2003, 02:54 PM

Most active Libertarians that I've met in person (granted, only a handful here in the East) seem to be the curmudgeonly "leave me alone" type. That doesn't really lend itself to producing political candidates above the level of court clerks and dogcatchers. The lack of compromise inherent to their platform is also politically crippling.
For another look at "Libertarians" in my home state, look up "Gary Reams" and "Reams Reeferendum". An anti-gun "Libertarian" is about all we see around here....

keederdag

September 15, 2003, 05:45 PM

Libertarians at heart? Please, Pretty please, stop compramising; don't vote for the lesser of two evils, this outlook will take us all somewhere that we don't want to go. There are pleanty of LP candidates where I am every election; I vote for em every time, they lose every time. All I here is that " I would vote for them, but they dont have a shot" why is that do you think? We need your help, the Reps are Selling us out. Vote with your heart; I respect a socialist that votes socialist rather than an LP that votes Republican. I am guity as any one else of this at times, but we have to change or things WILL get worse.

dustind

September 15, 2003, 06:00 PM

sctman800

September 15, 2003, 06:13 PM

At one time when I was young I voted Democrat because I thought they were for the working man. Then I voted Republican because I thought they would be better about lower taxes and gun rights. Then I realized I was just throwing my vote away because I always voted against "the lesser of the two evils" and the correct name for them is Republicrats. I first go with pro-gun canidates and have not been dissapointed with Libertarians. jim.

Danimal

September 15, 2003, 07:02 PM

I would support Libertarians in a heartbeat if our political system was different - say either Plato's "Philosopher-King" or a benevolent dictatorship. But in a democratic republic, a person's effectivness relates directly with their ability to work with other people, compromise and collaborate. Even if a Libertarian could get elected, they would accomplish nothing because they would be marginalized by the other parties. There are some things I hate to see compromise on. On other things, compromise is necessary.

All Libertarians say in a campaign is "vote for me...I'm not the other guy." It didn't work for Rick Lazio, and it doesn't work for Libertarians. If they could spend less time begging people not to compromise, and more time intelligently articulating their ideas to voters while making solid gains amongst the grassroots electorate, they would gradually increase in strength. Voting is considered a sacred right in America, and those of us who take it seriously, don't relish the thought of a protest vote or throwing it away.

Here in Oregon, most of the LP candidates are kooks. They are nice people and I am sure they are smart, but they come across as kooks who couldn't make it work within the other two parties and are bitter and disaffected. They do not connect with the voters, and they don't have any emotional history. That's a huge hurdle to overcome, and even if they did everything right, it would still be a miracle to split the electorate into three viable parties. But unfortunately, people don't like taking a risk on angry, bitter candidates from a third party they don't understand. Most of all, people want to associate with winners, and that goes for any party. No one wants to be attached to a loser. Sure, you have that small group who finds nobility in getting their butt stomped in every single time, but overall, people want to see progress. It would be like asking a person to invest in a losing stock that never makes any gains, hoping against hope that one day, a profit would show.

The Repubican Party disappoints me on several things, but those things are never enough to make me want to try something completely different with a horrible success rate. I can get more accomplished working within the system than I can by smacking my head against a wall in principled protest.

cordex

September 15, 2003, 07:07 PM

*laugh*
And I'm the one responding emotionally to an academic issue?

Danimal

September 15, 2003, 07:34 PM

Yes, you are the one who seems bent out of shape when the facts were laid out. I'm not trying to make anything personal here, and stating that voters want an emotional attachment to their candidates and party is a demonstratable fact. It's still a largely academic discussion, and while you can "laugh" all you want, it doesn't change a thing.

cordex

September 15, 2003, 08:07 PM

Sorry, Danimal ... I don't see where I've gotten bent out of shape.
In fact, I heartily agree - the Libertarians need to work hard at selling themselves, especially since parties have become entrenched and people are often willing to vote for a party rather than a candidate.

However, you have gone to great lengths to backhand them under the dubious pretense of not intending offense.

"I don't mean to offend, but all Libertarians are naïve beatniks who can't get themselves elected dogcatcher."

"No offense, friend, but all Republicans are fat, rich, pigs who feed off of the blood of the working man."

"With all due respect, Democrats are simply grubby-handed welfare babies who will never amount to anything."

Doesn't fly with me.

By the way, which areas are you willing to compromise on?
Gun control?
Freedom of the press?
Property rights?
It is rare to find a Republican or Democrat who will not work to compromise on very important freedom issues.

Danimal

September 15, 2003, 08:46 PM

Fair enough. I am not trying to beat up on Libertarians. However, I see no reason to attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Everyone can see what the Libertarians need to do, but no one is doing it. To me, that's almost worse than the problems the Republicans are charged with. Who do you want to support? Someone who is morally flexible and compromising, or someone who is just incompetent? Neither one is attractive, but it really lets the air out of the "don't vote for the lesser of two evils" argument. Now it's just Evil, Less Evil, and Incompetent. Until someone actually makes the great leap from tough-talking candidate to credible elected official - or even better, re-elected official, this is all just fluff. Great ideas need action, and I'm not seeing any from the LP. But, the fatal flaws in the LP don't make Republicans morally superior, just more electable.

As for the compromise issues, the RKBA is at the top of my list of things I won't touch. That's my personal litmus test. All others follow that. No candidate is ever going to be perfect, and to me it just makes sense that if I can find a candidate who will vote with me 8 times out of 10, I would support that candidate instead of giving my vote to a candidate with whom I would agree 10 times out of 10 - but has no chance at being elected - and help to elect a person (usually a Democrat) who would only vote with me 2 times out of 10. To me, having 8/10 of a loaf is better than starving, while feeling really good about myself.

AZLibertarian

September 15, 2003, 09:20 PM

Here in Oregon, most of the LP candidates are kooks. They are nice people and I am sure they are smart, but they come across as kooks who couldn't make it work within the other two parties and are bitter and disaffected. They do not connect with the voters, and they don't have any emotional history. That's a huge hurdle to overcome, and even if they did everything right, it would still be a miracle to split the electorate into three viable parties. But unfortunately, people don't like taking a risk on angry, bitter candidates from a third party they don't understand. Most of all, people want to associate with winners, and that goes for any party. No one wants to be attached to a loser. Sure, you have that small group who finds nobility in getting their butt stomped in every single time, but overall, people want to see progress. It would be like asking a person to invest in a losing stock that never makes any gains, hoping against hope that one day, a profit would show.

Danimal,

Not to slam you as you're just stating your views, and quite civilly, IMO, but I have some disagreements with your paragraph above.

The issue of not connecting with the voters is not limited to L's. The problem is that the D and R parties have mechanisms to vete their candidates well before they run for office. In no party is it a cinch. AlGore was characterized as wooden, GWB was characterized as a dumb frat-boy. Neither was the complete truth, but one's own political viewpoint probably determined just how much you believed.

You're right that angry, bitter candidates shouldn't be elected. They do a disservice to their party and platform.

I'm under no illusion that I'll ever see a "L" behind a major office-holder here in AZ. But I continue to vote Libertarian, because I occassionally see R's take a L view (Jeff Flake, my current Representative is one example). Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in '92, and Bush lost to Clinton. Perot's main platform was to balance the budget. Guess what happened in '94? Newt Gingrich was able to lead the "Republican Revolution" and his "Contract with America" which had some very libertarian elements... abolition of the Dept. of Education, and a balanced budget. IMO, Perot's loss in '92 gave a wake-up call (however short lived) to the Republicans, and they profitted from it in '94.

And, to keep this thread related to gun issues, the D's are hopeless anti-gunners. Unfortunately, many R's (Sen. McCain--my most "un-favorite" Senator) are able to convince voters that have some interest in RKBA, while participating in "frog-boiling" the electorate.

Seminole

September 15, 2003, 09:51 PM

I'm another libertarian.

Danimal wrote:
I would support Libertarians in a heartbeat if our political system was different - say either Plato's "Philosopher-King" or a benevolent dictatorship.

Of course, in either Plato's system or a "benevolent dictatorship" (as if that oxymoron could actually exist), there would be no "Libertarians" to support. Libertarianism has indeed worked in the past in this republic--it just wasn't called that. The political philosophy known as "Libertarianism" was widespread at the founding of the United States and was adhered to by both Federalists and Anti-Federalists. In the 18th and 19th century it was known simply as "liberalism." Unfortunately, that term was co-opted by the political left in the early 20th century and is now associated with the antithesis of what the term originally meant.

rock jock

September 15, 2003, 10:21 PM

Rock Jock: The answer is both. Libertarians really want to get the WOsD out of the fed's hands, and into the states. Libertarians also believe in personal choice and responsibility, thus oppose it all together in that sence.
Well, that is perfectly fine if they want to adopt that as a campaign plank, but it is a serious barrier to ever expanding their base. It is one reason why I will personally never vote LP. They are simply no different than the big govt Dems. The cannot but help sticking their nose where it is not wanted. They should adopt a strictly Constitutional approach - the feds have control over what is provided them in the Constitution, the states have control over everything else, provided it is not prohibited by the Constitution. Problem is, the LP wants their philosophy to be the guiding principle of our country, not the Constitution.

cordex

September 16, 2003, 12:03 AM

I see no reason to attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Exactly. Very well said.
Which is why I can't feel good about voting (R) or (D).
Who do you want to support? Someone who is morally flexible and compromising, or someone who is just incompetent?
Morally flexible simply means amoral.

If you can tell yourself that pragmatism is the order of the day and feel good about your decision, then voting for the slightly less evil major party is the way to go.

I can't.

AZRickD

September 16, 2003, 12:36 AM

Rock Jock says:but it is a serious barrier to ever expanding their base. It is one reason why I will personally never vote LP. They are simply no different than the big govt Dems. The cannot but help sticking their nose where it is not wanted. They should adopt a strictly Constitutional approachNon sequitor.

The LP position on possesson of drugs or guns or rugs is exactly *NOT* sticking their noses in other peoples' business.

Your premise assumes that a Libertarian would abandon principle to attract a few more votes. That is, Libertarians should then say, "Ya know, we don't believe people should be able to initiate force against people who are not violating another's rights ... unless it is to support the War On some Drugs."

Your premise is irrational. Sarah Brady might say, "... but their position on repealing the 1934 National Firearms Act is a serious barrier to ever expanding their base. It is one reason why I will personally never vote LP. They are simply no different than the NRA."

You would do well to study and rethink your position on this.They should adopt a strictly Constitutional approach - the feds have control over what is provided them in the Constitution, the states have control over everything else, provided it is not prohibited by the Constitution.Most Libertarians that *I* know *do* adopt a purely Constitutional frame work. And they are pilloried for that as well. The Constitution is mostly dead in this country. It is little more than window dressing. The Constitution calls for a Prez, a legislature, and a Judiciary. Everything else is *completely* up for grabs.

However, I do know several Libertarians who think the Constitution is bunk. They don't believe in Original Sin and they didn't sign any "Social Contract," let alone ratifying a Constitution that is approaching the status of dead letter.

Rick

Combat-wombat

September 16, 2003, 12:49 AM

The LP would take off like gangbusters if they would simply do one small thing -- drop the drug legalization plank from the platform

Yes, if it meant getting a LP candidate into office, I would support that because I care about our other freedoms more. However, I am strongly for the legalization of drugs, and I believe in their position.

jimpeel

September 16, 2003, 01:26 AM

The incrementalization of the drug war didn't happen overnight; and it is not to be expected that the undoing of that incrementalism will occur overnight.

The need is to get viable candidates in at the bottom of the ladder so they can become viable candidates at higher and higher levels. The problem with the LP is they refuse to realize that politics is a bottom up, not a top down, proposition.

Seeker

September 16, 2003, 01:35 AM

libertarian, and I usually vote Libertarian as I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, also because I agree with the LP platform.

ravinraven

September 16, 2003, 01:38 AM

One problem with liberitarianism up here hit me just this morning. The news nitwit was blabbering away about some political issue in a nearby village. I already forgot the issue. I think it had something to do with spending a government grant they had obtained.

The guy goes on about the percentages of people who were putting in their ideas. He read Democrats make up X% of the people who want to do whatever. Y% are Republicans. Librarians make up the rest. I nearly fell out of bed. That's what made me forget what the issue was. Librarians!

It's no secret that the LP has an uphill struggle.

rr

telewinz

September 16, 2003, 04:49 AM

Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. The revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social in New York between 1858 and 1861 [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75]. The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements.

Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas

cordex

September 16, 2003, 09:17 AM

telewinz,
The Nazi Party co-opted the word "socialist" to further their agenda. Do you mean to suggest that all Socialists are Nazis?
Third world hellholes including and especially dictatorial and communist nations around the globe use the term "People's Republic" or "People's Democratic Republic". Do you contend that any Republic or Democratic Republic is a third-world dictatorship, or communist society?

Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

I think you'll find that the Libertarian party (or is that the Librarian party?) doesn't desire anarchy. They fully intend to provide a less-intrusive government. Anarcho-Capitalists do want an anarchist system, after a fashion, but they are a completely different group.

(edit: added a question mark)

Skunkabilly

September 16, 2003, 10:23 AM

But Telewinz, the A with a circle around it looks so much cooler than 'LP'....:p

Sean Smith

September 16, 2003, 10:39 AM

Lots of people like some or all of what might be called the "core" libertarian ideas. However, most people haven't even heard of the Libertarian Party. You might as well be talking about the Yttrium Party as far as most voters are concerned. Screw their competence, they need to make their existence common knowledge first.

The fact of the matter is, considering American history up to this point it will probably take a major crisis to totally discredit one of the major parties to "make room" for a new party to take its place. The Republican party is a major party today because the Whig party imploded and the Democratic party split about 150 years ago. Unfortunately, crises in the 20th century tended to spawn "the government is going to save you" parties (Socialist, Nazi, Communist, etc.). Maybe if the government goes well and truly bankrupt due to over-spending by both major parties a libertarian-flavored alternative could assert itself as a major force somewhere other than Internet gun forums. The "problem," however, is that the American political system is extremely stable; even the Great Depression didn't provoke the creation of a new party that mattered. So if one of the major parties doesn't self-destruct, I'm not optimistic about a 3rd party becoming relevant anytime soon.

MicroBalrog

September 16, 2003, 05:52 PM

I'm a left-libertarian, does that count? :neener:

Tamara

September 16, 2003, 06:14 PM

I'm a left-libertarian, does that count? :neener:

Interesting. Not sure I've ever met someone who claims to be in favor of more government and less government at the same time... Is that kind of like a Democratic-Republican or a Conservative-Liberal? Do you like your bathwater cold-hot and your food bland-spicy as well? :scrutiny:

telewinz

September 16, 2003, 06:21 PM

"Your logic is fundamentally flawed."

Hell, all I did was look-up the definition of libertarian, if there is no logic involved, how is that my fault? Its not my political belief!

September 16, 2003, 06:29 PM

I'm registered Libertarian.

LP dos not need to remove the drug legalization plank. Just start advertising a new slogan.

"Make war on the drug-fed violence, Not on peaceful drug users"

cordex

September 16, 2003, 06:37 PM

Hell, all I did was look-up the definition of libertarian, if there is no logic involved, how is that my fault? Its not my political belief!
My bad. I thought you were trying to imply that Libertarians are closet Anarchists.

Aces

September 16, 2003, 07:15 PM

It's all pretty simple to me. The largest part of the electorate just doesn't want smaller Government.If they did, that's what we would have. Too many people have an unstated or stated beleif that government is there to take care of them.
Most people on this board look at politicos and wonder how they will screw them. A very large part of the population wonders what will they do for me? Will a populace conditioned by too many years of a nanny state consider a candidate who will say; "Nothing, you're on your own now"? When there's always an alternative who feels their pain and knows better than they do?
The gov. didn't grow into the behemoth it is overnight, and no single party or person will dismember it overnight.

Aces

September 16, 2003, 07:33 PM

It's also real easy to shout from the sidelines. Not that the LP belongs there by any means.But just as there are Republicrats, I could also envision "Liberacrats" if they ever ascend to office.
Does anyone really think that a Libertarian would get elected in the corn belt campaigning on a free market platform. Or in the rust belt running on free trade?

Chris Rhines

September 16, 2003, 07:48 PM

I kinda blew through libertarianism into full-fledged anarchism. But I can get along with libertarians. They're nice folks, just not as consistant as they should be. ;)

- Chris

hammer4nc

September 16, 2003, 08:09 PM

tele posted:
Hell, all I did was look-up the definition of libertarian, if there is no logic involved, how is that my fault? Its not my political belief!

Tele, why would you choose to excerpt a couple of paragraphs from "the Anarchist FAQ website (here's his link: http://www.algonet.se/~rsm/actual/archive/a-faq.htm ) and then try to assert it was from an encyclopedia? Not a question of logic, but agenda.

I'd love to see your bookmarked references list.

Without getting into semantics, libertarians seem to be the only group espousing reduction of government. Quite different from anarchists, IMO, though some would try to make this connection to discredit the movement.

AZRickD

September 16, 2003, 10:58 PM

That cute history about the Anarchists using the term libertarian so that you can confuse libertarians with Big-A anarchists as we know the Circle-A folks now-a-daze is perverse.

The Circle-A anarchists are really Marxists. I've spoken to more than I can count at a series of protests two years ago. They are anti business (small, medium, large) and believe that any worker should share in the wealth of the shop owner. When asked who would enforce this rule, they were mixed on how it would be done. Some would boycott. Others would call in the Jackboots. Interesting.

Rick

NIGHTWATCH

September 17, 2003, 03:30 AM

I think we can all agree on this one point......
THE WORD "GOVERNMENT" IS NOW EQUAL TO THE WORD "VIOLATION"

We are violated at every turn. Driven to so called "criminal acts" out of self-preservation, and violated some more. If you dont agree with GOVERNMENT, they send out men with guns to convince you. If you still dont agree, the men with guns will kill you (if only the dead could speak). :mad:

telewinz

September 17, 2003, 05:43 AM

"Without getting into semantics, libertarians seem to be the only group espousing reduction of government. Quite different from anarchists, IMO, though some would try to make this connection to discredit the movement."

Lighten-up, libertarians and anarchists have been linked for decades. They do share many common beliefs, its a question of degree. Why fear a word? What definition/source do you feel is PC? So that you won't be confused, these are quotes from a dictionary.

dic·tion·ar·y
n. pl. dic·tion·ar·ies
A reference book containing an alphabetical list of words, with information given for each word, usually including meaning, pronunciation, and etymology.
A book listing the words of a language with translations into another language.

Main Entry: lib·er·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: "li-b&r-'ter-E-&n
Function: noun
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

an·ar·chism
n.
The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: "He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity" (Bertrand Russell).

Sean Smith

September 17, 2003, 09:55 AM

Tamara says:
MicroBalrog,
I'm a left-libertarian, does that count?

Interesting. Not sure I've ever met someone who claims to be in favor of more government and less government at the same time... Is that kind of like a Democratic-Republican or a Conservative-Liberal? Do you like your bathwater cold-hot and your food bland-spicy as well?

Well, there WAS a joke about the Israeli prime minister before the '67 war (Eshkol, IIRC) who was so indecisive that when he was asked, "Coffee or tea?" by a waitress, he'd respond, "Give me half of each!"

:D

rock jock

September 17, 2003, 11:42 AM

The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
That's kind of like wanting to abolish lawyers. If we all got along like tea and cakes, we wouldn't have need for them either. Govts. exist and always will in one form or another. In their absence you still have political entities, only they are not legitimized through the formal establishment of a hierachy and distribution of powers and outside the purview of any law, so they act instead as de facto dictatorships. Somalia is one of the few modern examples that comes to mind of true anarchy. Maybe that sewer is your dream of a perfect society, but not mine. The truth is that there has never been a society that has existed peacefully without a form of govt. So, while there is nothing wrong with wanting a perfect society, actively working towards the abolishment of govt. is a foolish pursuit.

Richardson

September 17, 2003, 12:32 PM

I'm pretty much a libertarian, especially on the federal level of government. The things that kept me a Republican was that they were against foreign interventions, pro-gun, anti-big government, and anti-abortion. Well they've accomplished nothing in regards to restoring gun-rights (on the federal level) or in regard to making abortion illegal (except to preserve the life of the mother), and they've recently become the ones to champion increasing federal government and foreign military interventions, so I'm going pretty straight Libertarian, where they exist.

The problem the Republicans get into is that they say they're against big government and socialism, but then they let issues drive them into becoming de facto socialists.

Richardson

Keith

September 17, 2003, 12:49 PM

Another small "L" libertarian here.

The biggest problem I have with party itself is the idea of "open borders".

The idea is insane because opening the borders would immediately see us swarmed with people who vote in a big gubmint nanny state...

And when I talk to my big "L" friends, they tell me I'm wrong - that immigrants would appreciate the liberty and be staunch libertarians. And when I point out that current immigrants vote almost solidly left/liberal, they change the subject...

I vote Libertarian in any election with a Libertarian in the race - in Alaska, that's most elections, but I won't join the party until they drop that open borders insanity.

Keith

Tamara

September 17, 2003, 02:12 PM

The idea is insane because opening the borders would immediately see us swarmed with people who vote in a big gubmint nanny state...

The problem with the "open borders" plank is the same as the one with the "end the Wo(S)D" plank: ie, to make either work, the "big gubmint nanny state" thing needs to be eliminated first.

Keith

September 17, 2003, 02:58 PM

ie, to make either work, the "big gubmint nanny state" thing needs to be eliminated first.

Yeah, but immigrants start at the bottom of the economic ladder. They've never heard of John Locke and the only Thomas Jefferson they are familiar with is printed on currency. The first thing fifty million immigrants will do is vote in another nanny state to "give them stuff". And it wouldn't take all that many to join in with the liberals and amend the constitution until we became something resembling a 1980's Bulgaria.

It just seems pointless to go through all the changes required to gut the nanny state we have, only to invite in an electorate who are dedicated to undoing all of our work.

The ideal is noble, the reality is ugly. Borders are good things and immigration needs to be orderly and strictly controlled.

Keith

Warner

September 17, 2003, 03:07 PM

Libertarians have many good ideas, but it's an EXTREMELY naive place to put a vote. They remain, and will remain for a VERY long time.....a small group with good ideas.

IMO, it's a vote that's thrown completely away. It's that because #1 - they won't win (as much as I'd like them to), #2 it gives REAL benefit to the competition.

Please don't tell me that with a Libertarian vote, you intend to send a "message" to the Republicans to "shape up". The GOP is the best we all currently have available to us to get MOST of what we want. Let's remain in control of judicial apppointments, Senate commitee head appointments and all the rest down the line.

Make a "statement" somewhere else.

PLEASE don't be a naive voter.

Gordon Fink

September 17, 2003, 03:51 PM

“Immigrants come here to take advantage of our welfare state.”

“If we let immigrants come here, they’ll vote to create a welfare state.”

Well, either we already have a welfare state that attracts immigrants, or we don’t (and immigrants come for reasons other than welfare). Libertarians want to largely dismantle the welfare state, which would eliminate the alleged reason for the immigration so many “libertarian” Republicans fear. Furthermore, Libertarians would end welfare before “opening” the borders.

As it stands, “illegal” immigration is prohibited in much the same way felons are prohibited from owning firearms. So how should we “close” the borders? Build walls? Lay minefields? Post machine-gun nests? Institute internal checkpoints to verify the “citizenship” of travelers? No-knock searches of homes and businesses?

Immigrants come to this country for the same reasons we love it: freedom and opportunity. If we destroy freedom and opportunity, I can guarantee that the immigrants will stop coming. Truly closing the borders would be a good first step in that direction.

So all you “libertarian” Republicans (and the two Democrats) need to decide whether or not you really want freedom. If not, then at least stop saying “I’m a libertarian, but …” That’s just as bad as a gun-control advocate saying “I support hunting and the Second Amendment, but …”

~G. Fink

Keith

September 17, 2003, 03:52 PM

IMO, it's a vote that's thrown completely away. It's that because #1 - they won't win (as much as I'd like them to), #2 it gives REAL benefit to the competition.

Then New Yorkers and Californians should just vote democratic because if they don't, their vote "will be just thrown away".

A libertarian vote is a good vote. If nothing else, it lets the other parties know what we think.

Keith

cordex

September 17, 2003, 03:57 PM

PLEASE don't be a naive voter.
I know what voting Libertarian will get me. Namely, very little.
On the other hand, I also know what voting GOP or Dem will get me. "Victories" such as Patriot I and II, larger government, increased spending and more restricted freedoms.

I'll play the naïve voter before I'll grant tacit approval for the unjust actions on the parts of both the Republicans and the Democrats.
The GOP is the best we all currently have available to us to get MOST of what we want.
Oh really? Have you gotten most of what you want since the legislative and executive branches were both taken by the Republicans?
I sure haven't.

Richardson

September 17, 2003, 04:07 PM

Oh really? Have you gotten most of what you want since the legislative and executive branches were both taken by the Republicans?

Cordex,

That's exactly the point. They give us the rhetoric we want, but fail to perform...

Richardson

Danimal

September 17, 2003, 04:25 PM

This is going to piss a lot of people off, so I really do want to say in advance that it is not my opinion of the Libertarian Party, or anyone who supports them. But it might be a question worthy of discussion.

Remember how we have said in the past that Democrats are counting on this country to fail, in order for them to succeed? The war must go badly. The economy must circle the drain.

Would it be logical to think that Libertarians need the same things in order for them to succeed? Does anyone think that is why some Libertarians are so eager to give elections to Democrats, knowing that D's are going to ruin this country a lot faster than R's would, and that a ruined country would provide a much more fertile ground for the emergence of a third party?

Just a conversation starter. Not my wacko conspiracy theory or anything like that.

Sean Smith

September 17, 2003, 04:35 PM

My take on it Danimal? That the Libertarians belive that the country will crap out no matter which of the 2 major parties is in charge, since in their eyes they are virtually identical... just variations on a theme, so to speak. But then again, if they didn't belive that things would get worse without a Libertarian government, they'd have no reason to exist as a Libertarian party, would they?

Danimal

September 17, 2003, 05:10 PM

It's no secret that I'm a Republican, but I am often disappointed how the theory of Republicanism often translates into the practice of government. Usually I just chalk up those discrepancies between theory and practice to just that. When we write out our party platform, it usually doesn't take into account that we have to deal with people of different viewpoints or priorities. Principles like these are not pragmatic, nor should they be.

So my next question is how would a Libertarian government function? And for this example, I would ask respondents to specify the level of Libertarianism - control of the congress, control of the executive branch, Judicial branch, or all three. Libertarians profess a deep-seated dislike for government as an infringement on freedom in almost every form. So how could a Libertarian government function without being a complete contradiction. Or would it take the kind of compromise they adamantly refuse to give in other circumstances or discussions. Thus, if they compromise would they be anything unlike the two parties they currently rail against? How long before Libertarianism in practice becomes identical to Republicans and Democrats?

Keith

September 17, 2003, 05:26 PM

A Libertarian government would function exactly like the one described in the US Constitution.
Powers would be limited to those specifically described and the Tenth Amendment would be enforced to make sure no others would be usurped.

Keith

keederdag

September 17, 2003, 05:34 PM

Danimal"sometimes disapointed in Rebublicans" WOW..I'd like a bit more clairity on that one. How mutch? Once a year? Month? Week? Day? Keith Ditto Pal. You stated it perfectly right. Minimal Federal Control. it's that simple, and guess what, the Framers thought it up.:)

BigG

September 17, 2003, 05:41 PM

They must be able to sell those ideas to the voting public. Yep, lots of good ideas here. Woody Guthrie who was just slightly left of FDR said, "You'll get pie in the sky when you die." And that's just what the L/libertarians, who probably as Danimal said, sit in coffee houses sipping latte, wearing black berets, and sneering at everything and everybody that "don't get it" are offering me. They need to sell me with REASON and a WORKABLE PLAN to convince this small r republican. :uhoh:

keederdag

September 17, 2003, 05:53 PM

Danimal

September 17, 2003, 05:59 PM

Ok, Keith. That is a great theoretical textbook answer of minimal control. But how would a practical Libertarian Government function within the framework of a representative democracy? And what happens if Libertarians control one branch, but not the others. How would they interact and compromise? How hard would Libertarians fight to remain in control of a government they claim to dislike - after all, if you aren't in control, you don't get to make the rules, right? So much of our electorate is conditioned to vote for the people who give them the most stuff, and feel that freedom comes with too much personal responsibility. How would a Libertarian Government overcome that hurdle? Likewise, how would Libertarians in control answer the charges from their own base that they are selling out principles? Every party has that element, and Libertarians are certainly no different.

BigG

September 17, 2003, 06:04 PM

Hey, I'm all for getting rid of the extra taxes, racial/sex based hiring, setasides, drug enforcement, etc. abuses. How are you going to go about doing it?

Extra credit: How are you going to deal with the massive crime wave that will result when you take away all the bennies from said recipients. Further, how will you curb the predatory instincts of the residents of your utopia who realize there is no penalty for robbing your neighbor except for what the neighbor dishes out himself? Remember, we all aren't 6'5", 240, in perfect health and have the fighting skills of Chow Yun-fat. :uhoh:

Tamara

September 17, 2003, 06:09 PM

Likewise, how would Libertarians in control answer the charges from their own base that they are selling out principles?

I dunno, but you can look up Ron Paul's voting record and find out. ;)

Further, how will you curb the predatory instincts of the residents of your utopia who realize there is no penalty for robbing your neighbor except for what the neighbor dishes out himself?

I must've missed the part in the Libertarian platform where they said they plan on de-criminalizing murder, rape, and theft. :uhoh:

Gordon Fink

September 17, 2003, 06:09 PM

They need to sell me with REASON and a WORKABLE PLAN to convince this small r republican.

Where would you like us to start? Which parts of the Libertarian platform (besides drugs and immigration, which have already been discussed) do you not understand or aren’t you sold on?

~G. Fink

BigG

September 17, 2003, 06:16 PM

I must've missed the part in the Libertarian platform where they said they plan on de-criminalizing murder, rape, and theft Mkay. Sorry for asking a practical question, Tamara. Guess we're just keeping this theoretical, hmm? ;)

Danimal

September 17, 2003, 06:18 PM

Maybe, when something you care about, like 2A, is gone you'll decide that the lesser of two evils was still evil after all. At least we latte drinkin, black beret wearin LP's voted to save our rights. While you little r's kept compromising till our rights swirled down the bowl

Do you want a medal? Is that what you are looking for? The ability to say I told you so? Because we all know what a big help that is.... So does this answer my question about Libertarians wanting the failure of freedom in our society so they can prance about and go neener, neener, neener...I told you so? This isn't a game. It isn't a project for a political science class at some community college.

And as per your question about why I am disappointed, I will say that disappointment results from the difference between what you want and what you can have. I can't have everything I want, mostly because there are a whole lot of other people in this nation that want other things. Sometimes it goes my way, sometimes it goes theirs. That is the price paid for democracy.

Otto von Bismark, the Iron Chancellor of Germany, once said that Politics is the art of the possible. What you want and desire is often very different from what you can realistically accomplish.

To quote Robert DeNiro in Ronin....You are great in the locker room, but you are weak when you put your spikes on.

Gordon Fink

September 17, 2003, 06:33 PM

How are you going to deal with the massive crime wave that will result when you take away all the bennies from [welfare] recipients. Further, how will you curb the predatory instincts of the residents of your utopia who realize there is no penalty for robbing your neighbor except for what the neighbor dishes out himself?

Guess what? Murder, rape, assault, and theft will always be crimes. Smaller, more efficient police forces, freed from the burdens of apprehending non-violent drug users, would still be charged with apprehending the offenders. Meanwhile, citizens would be free to exercise their right to bear arms, allowing them to more easily resist violent crimes.

Besides, if other elements of the Libertarian platform work, many of these former welfare recipients would be gainfully employed instead of participating in a “massive crime wave.” With the decriminalization of drugs, many addicts would also no longer need to steal to support their habits. Other drug-related crime would also decline as the profits from smuggling and illicit sales disappeared.

~G. Fink

Kurt

September 17, 2003, 06:39 PM

IMO, It’s easy to see an ignorance of our complete overall system by those expounding the benefits of the LP.

Sure, I think many Republicans are foolish lame asses that have missed a golden opportunity these last few years to be strong, reinforce their positions and cater to their conservative base when they had the power.......and I’d like to slap most of them - hard.

I’m just not enraged enough to toss my vote away to anyone who cannot win. I can and DO put effort into letting them know how I feel, AND somewhere in that sort of effort, is the eventual solution that would please most of us long term.

LP supporters and chestpounders........ put your reputations on the line and make a prediction right here and now on THR.

Tell all of us WHICH MAJOR ELECTIONS the Libertarian Party will win in the near future. If you can’t or won’t, WTH is all the fuss about? You already know all you need to know.

Gordon Fink

September 17, 2003, 06:43 PM

I’m just not enraged enough to toss my vote away to anyone who cannot win.…

So will you vote for Lucifer or for Judas?

~G. Fink

Kurt

September 17, 2003, 06:49 PM

I'll hold my nose, and work hard with the system we have.

Danimal

September 17, 2003, 06:58 PM

So will you vote for Lucifer or for Judas?

I'd vote for Judas. He can be bought. He was effective for his employers. And I have no illusions about his character or the risks associated therein.

Is it ideal? Far from. But if those are the only two legitimate choices and I would end up with either one or the other, it's best to support the one you can control, instead of kvetching on the sidelines and becoming a target of both.

Glock Glockler

September 17, 2003, 09:07 PM

Danimal,

Forgive me, but what exactly is the "theory" of Republicanism? There is no consistent philosophy that they base their views on, so how are they contradicting themselves by just blowing with the wind and becomming ever more socialist?

As for being practical in govt, that's easy. They would 1) cause as much gridlock as possible to ensure the passage of the least amount of laws, and 2) only compromise when the compromise is in our direction. That's what the socialists do and they're marvelously effective.

Extra credit: How are you going to deal with the massive crime wave that will result when you take away all the bennies from said recipients.

1 - Reduce bennies slowly, in small and insensible degrees, which will help a more smooth transition to go from being a slug to a productive person or to being dead. Either one is fine with me.

2 - Get the govt out of the education business. By freeing education we will be providing a tremendous boost to the economy by 1) saving a lot of wasted money on govt education, and 2) providing a practical education that will be applicable to the real world and will suit the individual needs of students rather than the one-size-fits-all system we currently have. A truely educated population will be fantasitcally beneficial to the economy, which would help reduce crime.

3 - Reinstate RKBA. Allow people to defend themselves and the population of career criminals will seriously diminish.

4 - Eliminate govt welfare. Their policy promotes broken families and an entitlement mantality that they are owed a living by those around them. If the govt gives you the fruits of others, why not take it yourself?

5 - Lower taxes

6 - Reduce govt strangulation on businesses

How's that?

Kurt,

I'll continuie to give the Ds & Rs the middle finger until they stop giving it to me, it's as simple as that.

BigG

September 17, 2003, 09:16 PM

Glockgockler: Your list sounds pretty impressive but I think that human nature is stronger than you give it credit. In other words, I contend that the inertia of a "slug" will tend to keep him in his slugdom, if you will. When deprived of the hots/cots, the tendency of modern self control lacking idiots, er citizens, is to lash out with violence. Oh my!

I want to ask you about this: ...to go from being a slug to a productive person or to being dead. Either one is fine with me. So, we would get rid of inconvenient people, hmm? Sounds a bit too close to Hitler's Final Solution for me.

Glock Glockler

September 17, 2003, 09:29 PM

When deprived of the hots/cots, the tendency of modern self control lacking idiots, er citizens, is to lash out with violence. Oh my

1 - The doles would be removed gradually, so they would be given time to adapt, and with the greatly expanding economic opportunity, he'd have ample opportunity to find a means to provide for himself. If he lashes out, he will face armed people, so let the chips fall where they may.

So, we would get rid of inconvenient people, hmm? Sounds a bit too close to Hitler's Final Solution for me.

More like Darwin's final solution, that is. The difference is that Hitler was taking an active role in getting rid of people where I intend to be completely passive. If someone prefers to starve as opposed to getting a job and providing for themself, so be it.

Danimal

September 17, 2003, 09:58 PM

Danimal,

Forgive me, but what exactly is the "theory" of Republicanism? There is no consistent philosophy that they base their views on, so how are they contradicting themselves by just blowing with the wind and becomming ever more socialist?

As for being practical in govt, that's easy. They would 1) cause as much gridlock as possible to ensure the passage of the least amount of laws, and 2) only compromise when the compromise is in our direction.

I would suggest you check out www.rnc.org. I am confident you would find links to the GOP party platform. Like I said, philosophy exists in a bubble. That's why the practical application of these theories is so much different.

To your other point of "working" in government, I would say that it takes numbers (a key factor in democracy) to be effective - or purveyors of gridlock - in your case. By refusing to play with others, you can be assured that you will be marginalized. You couldn't stall a vote, because you wouldn't be in charge. You couldn't sideline a bill, because no one would put you as the chair of a committee. You couldn't get anyone's help on anything because you would be politically worthless. No one books a cruise on a visibly sinking ship. If you can't deliver on any philosophical goals, how would you convince people to abandon the parties who can?

Tamara

September 17, 2003, 10:10 PM

But see, that's where we reach our impasse. Do I vote for the candidate whose views I disagree with, simply because he has a good chance of getting his disagreeable views enacted as law?

As a ferinstance, say your (Danimal's) local GOP candidate is running on a mixed platform of mandatory prayer in schools, stricter crime-fighting measures including the death penalty for drug dealing, and the repeal of the AW ban. His Dem opponent is running on the currently trendy "We're only going to expand government a little bit, and give lots of moolah to the people who vote for us" Democrat platform. Obviously, the Dem candidate has a much better chance of seeing his platform become legislation after he's elected. Should you vote for him?

I realize it's the reductio ad absurdum of what you're saying, but think about it; is the likelihood of a candidate's success in office the deciding criteria of who should get my vote?

keederdag

September 17, 2003, 10:10 PM

Danimal, how did we get to where we are NOW. Answer: guy's like youself. You are great comprimisers, great beleivers in " we'll just pay later" This HAS not worked in our favor. If you like, YOU continue to comprimise and back down. I won't. I don't want a medal, I want a secure Bill of rights. Beleive me, there will be no happieness in saying I told you so. Vote for Your little "r's" and I'll try to change things while you work for gradual decent.:)

BigG

September 17, 2003, 10:14 PM

Not to cause any discord among us brethren but maybe the Freemen (libertarian prototypes) are looking for new members out there whereever they are... :uhoh:

Tamara

September 17, 2003, 10:17 PM

Not to cause any discord among us brethren

Then why did you say it?

BigG

September 17, 2003, 10:22 PM

The Freemen espouse the same dissatisfaction and plead illegitimacy of the US Government. Not to cause discord but to reveal kindred thought that some may be unaware of. Whether I personally think the Freemen are looney toons should not be an issue. I have been up front with my skepticism.

A Google search revealed several pertinent articles on the first page. Here is one: Montana (http://www.freedomdomain.com/freemen.html)

Tamara

September 17, 2003, 10:34 PM

The Freemen espouse the same dissatisfaction and illegitimacy of the US Government.

Well, that cuts a pretty wide swathe. Everybody from the Wobblies to Paddy Buchanan to the ghost of Jefferson would fit the "dissatisfaction" part, for sure.

What's more interesting is where the GOP has gone; the Libertarian platform (and the fairly similar Constitution Party platform) could be laid over the 1920's, Coolidge-era GOP platform without hanging over the edges. Meanwhile, the two major parties, since the days of FDR, have advocated constant growth of federal power, differing only in the rate of growth and the areas of growth. What's so radical about someone saying "Hey, we have this 'Constitution' thing we're supposed to be following, and 99 44/100th's percent of what government does today has little or nothing to do with it."?

(That's why Coolidge is my all-time favorite President; he vetoed legislation left and right, sending it back to Congress with "I see no Constitutional authority for this law" scribbled under his signature. ;) )

Glock Glockler

September 17, 2003, 10:50 PM

Danimal,

I tooled around that website and could not find it, but I really don't need that in order to see Republicans running up a giant deficit, being very mediocre on gun control, doing the corporate welfare things, fighting the almighty drug war, and a whole bunch of other bullocks that makes me want to vomit, I really can't see much of a philosophical theme here except govt power in their flavor.

Also, why did you contract out the arguement? You should be able to tell me exactly what the Republican philosophy is, I can tell you what the libertarian philosophy is. I don't see how philosophy has to exist in a bubble, we want to get govt out of people's lives and let them just be, and we work towards that goal, what's the problem?

I would be just fine with the results of having the Ls cause gridlock something fierce. Seeing how approx. 200 pages of Federal regulations are added every business day (thank you, Republicans), that's plenty to satisfy me.

Cactus

September 17, 2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Tamara:
I dunno, but you can look up Ron Paul's voting record and find out.

But wouldn't Rep. Paul, by your own definition, be a sell out for becoming a Republican?

Tamara

September 17, 2003, 10:53 PM

But wouldn't Rep. Paul, by your own definition, be a sell out for becoming a Republican?

'Long as he votes like a libertarian, he can call himself a Martian for all I care. ;)

Danimal

September 17, 2003, 10:55 PM

Danimal, how did we get to where we are NOW. Answer: guy's like youself. You are great comprimisers, great beleivers in " we'll just pay later" This HAS not worked in our favor. If you like, YOU continue to comprimise and back down. I won't....

Keederdag, I am confident that laying America's problems squarely at my feet is nothing more than grandstanding, much like your claims of not backing down. Not to over-use a sports analogy, but you aren't even on the field. You are still in the locker room drawing X's and O's and pontificating about the perfect game. Libertarianism would be a great philosophy if everyone agreed with it. So would Socialism. Or totalitarianism. But you make no allowances for having to confront divergent (and constitutionally protected) points of view. You can blame me for letting the opposite team score some points, but please excuse me when I point out that your criticism loses steam when you refuse to (or can't) play.

No game is perfect. I readily admit that I wish Republicans spent more time in the locker room, but sooner or later you have to take the field and put up or shut up. Let me know when a Libertarian wins an election - as a Libertarian - and then we will know that Libertarians are more than just talk in a coffee shop.

BigG

September 18, 2003, 08:38 AM

Coolidge is my all-time favorite President... I see no constitutional authority for this bill... My history is a little foggy but isn't Silent Cal considered one of the forefathers of the Great Depression? :eek:

So let's see, [list=1]
Prohibition
Roaring 20s
Organized Crime
Bathtub Gin
The Speakeasy
Unsolved Murders
The Untouchables
Stock Market Crash
Okies movin to Californy
Rise of B. Mussolini, A. Hitler
Rape of Poland
Bending over of France
Kicking @ss by the American Doughboy
[/list=1]
Yep, it was a pretty good time, all right! :uhoh:

And you'd like to bring it all back. Although I'd admit you'd probably look dynamite in a Bonnie Parker maxi skirt and beret, a la Faye Dunaway. :cool:

Tamara

September 18, 2003, 08:40 AM

So, you're saying that that was all the fault of conservative GOP policies and an attempt to stick to the Constitution?

I never took you for a New Dealer; I thought you were a Republican... :confused:

BigG

September 18, 2003, 08:44 AM

Snicker, snort, bwa ha ha. :p No, Tamara, I am just saying we need to remember our history, not just the rose colored view of our good memories.

Sean Smith

September 18, 2003, 09:52 AM

Libertarians are so silly... :neener:

cordex

September 18, 2003, 10:02 AM

I am just saying we need to remember our history, not just the rose colored view of our good memories.
This from someone who supports the Republican Party?

BigG

September 18, 2003, 10:39 AM

You obviously don't Cordex. I will hold my nose and vote for the possible rather than taking my ball and going home like most staunch l/Ls seem to do.

cordex

September 18, 2003, 10:57 AM

I will hold my nose and vote for the possible
And if the Republican candidate doesn't have a chance in the area you live in? How do you vote in that kind of election?
rather than taking my ball and going home like most staunch l/Ls seem to do.
How is not giving a vote to someone I don't agree with or want in power "taking my ball and going home"?

Kurt

September 18, 2003, 10:58 AM

Amen BigG.

We have to work within the system, and the LP is not any serious part of that system.

Tamara

September 18, 2003, 11:19 AM

That's what I, in all seriousness, attempted to ask Danimal about on the previous page. What if both candidates are offering the "possible", and almost all their possibilities strike one as unconstitutional or immoral? Who do I vote for then? I mean, you can barely slide a sheet of paper between the Dems and the GOP these days; they both seem to be in favor of gun control, just in varying amounts; they're both in favor of the War on Whatever; they're both in favor of income redistribution and offer various blends of anti-capitalist economic policy. Who do I choose?

I grew up in a family where the names "Roosevelt" and "LBJ" were spoken in the same tone of voice reserved for "Clinton" on this board. In fact, Grandma Johnson wouldn't even say FDR's name; she'd refer to him as "that man" or "that liar". I was a Young Republican (although I helped my folks put up Larry McDonald campaign signs once. Apparently he was a Good Democrat, since he made any currently-serving Congressman this side of Ron Paul look like a screaming pinko.) I was as traditionally Conservative as you could get.

Of course, then there came the obligatory fling with a Social-Justice-All-We-Are-Saying-Is-Give-Peace-A-Chance phase after I moved out of the house. This lasted about until the time I realized that "Social Justice" meant letting deadbeat friends-of-friends crash on your couch and having to split your good sensimilla with some idiot who'd gotten ripped off for a bag of oregano, since it was only fair, man, and "Give Peace A Chance" kinda sucked, too, if it meant turning in my guns and letting any dumb mugger with a cub scout knife have his way.

So, many years older, and a tiny bit wiser, I trudged back towards my roots, only... only... I found I no longer really had any desire to tell people what to do, other than "Don't touch my stuff," and "Keep your hands off me." I didn't have the recipe for saving the world anymore, like I did when I was in high school ("Make sure they're not commies and make 'em go to church") or college ("Like, just share with them and let them know they're loved") I was still all fired up about the Constitution, as it seemd a fairly decent recipe for making sure that folks didn't touch my stuff and kept their hands off me, yet in a massive twist of irony, the ones who were supposed to be upholding that document were as likely to be the ones doing the touching and handling as not. Are my only choices now to be between a party that advocates Tax'n'Spend economics and the curtailment of civil liberties and... well, the other party that advocates Tax'n'Spend economics and the curtailment of civil liberties? Where do I go now? Why is it considered "silly" and "impractical" these days to think that the Constitution is a fairly swell thing, and we'd all maybe be better off if we stuck closer to it? Since when is the desire for freedom something so risible?

Kurt

September 18, 2003, 11:27 AM

Some possible comfort......

As most of us know, the Constitution can be taken seriously again in a very short period of time by those trashing it about - circumstances permitting :D

As well established law, it's not going anywhere - and I have several copies myself.

BigG

September 18, 2003, 11:52 AM

Sigh - you are an idealist, Tamara, deep down inside. :o As John Wayne's character said in Liberty Valance, "I can live with it."

THE CONSTITUTION - or is it The Constitution - I've said it before over the years and been roundly slapped for it, but, you asked for it, so here it is: The constitution is only enforceable at gunpoint. All the posturing, speechifying, and pontificating can only end in gunplay. When people do not agree and cannot sway the opponents they eventually resort to one of two things: abject servility or politics by other means. I've often asserted my vote for politics by other means and still stick by it. :uhoh:

The saw about ballots, witness, jury, bullets, etc. Is just a vain hope and impractical as the l/Libertarian hope of ever making a difference thru all their caring and rhetoric.

You have my undying respect for a good mind and I support your right to believe as you do 100%. I consider you a trusted friend, even though we may not pull the handle the same way when the curtain closes. :)

Danimal

September 18, 2003, 12:08 PM

Tamara,

Your last post struck a chord with me, and since I have been reading your opinion on Libertarianism for going on four years now, I am begining to understand, and thus perhaps some of my vitriol is abating.

The fight isn't between Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians. It's between realists and idealists. That's why so many of us GOP'ers like and admire many libertarian ideas. But because politics is carried out by people, it can never be perfect. The theories cannot account for all the flaws that people bring to the table. A perfect idea cannot exist in an imperfect world. It will be corrupted. Even democracy in itself has a lot of problems, since participation in government carries certain expectations of responsibility, awareness and investment. I recall that Winston Churchill said that democracy was the absolute worst form of government, except for all the rest.

We can never have a Libertarian utopia - and not because it wouldn't be a fine place to be - but because libertarianism expects the best from people in its philosophy and cannot survive to be governed by those who are imperfect or who do not share the same goals of society. It's like the Hobbes and Locke argument about the nature of man being basically good, or 'nasty, brutish and short'.

You have been disappointed by both conservatism and liberalism in the past, but your disappointment has not tempered your desires as it does with us Republicans. We know the system is not perfect. We know we will be disappointed and occasionally betrayed. We accept that as a price for participating in a flawed system run by flawed people. That's why, despite the disgruntled barbs we throw at you Libertarians, we admire you in a strange way. You haven't surrendered the vision of perfect government and freedom to the ugly realities of the world. You are artists who paint what they want the world to be. We are photographers who record the world as it is, with all its ugliness.

BigG

September 18, 2003, 12:38 PM

Agree with Danimal's eloquence, y'all. :)

Tamara

September 18, 2003, 12:48 PM

keederdag

September 18, 2003, 01:58 PM

Danimal, Grandstanding is your bit not mine. As I recall you called us Black beret wearin, latte drinkin, idealist with no real plan or hope. I think you fire'd the first shot Podna. I also think that your realism is more sellout blather. You never even bothered to answer my question. Quantify your disapointment in your own party. You allway's seem to fall back on the argument that to vote LP is ineffective. So tell me this, how under your policy's are things going to improve? Your own party sells you out on a regualar basis. You should be mad at them, not us! All you do with your vote is stall, at best. The bill of rights is dwindling away, and you continue to defend the Two party system, and give it your support. I'll take idealism any time over where your at. :)

Danimal

September 18, 2003, 02:12 PM

I understand what y'all are saying, but you'll forgive me for secretly hoping that a Whig once scratched the same words with a quill pen in a letter to one of his friends who, dreamer that he was, hoped to revive the Jeffersonian Republicans.

That's why we all admire Libertarians in principle. There probably isn't a single one of us that hasn't thought at one time or another that we were born 200 years too late, or wanted to be part of something as special as the founding of a nation or the drafting of a constitution. My bookshelves are lined with biographies on the founding fathers and of histories starting with ancient Greece and Rome. I have wanted those things too.

But here is the kicker....How do you take an idealistic philosophy and effectively apply it to the real world? Communists were able to do it at the point of a sword and the muzzle of a gun. But their machine failed because it did not account for external forces and internal flaws. Could Libertarianism survive as a no-compromise, everybody-for-themselves political system, or would it have to evolve and adapt? Would that evolution eventually turn Libertarianism into something similar to what you folks disdainfully refer to as Republicans or Democrats?

Gordon Fink

September 18, 2003, 04:58 PM

[O]nly compromise when the compromise is in our direction. That’s what the socialists do and they’re marvelously effective.

Just had to borrow the above.

Danimal, there is certainly room for compromise within a libertarian framework. Why do you assume that Libertarians can’t compromise effectively?

Regardless, though, if you stay with Judas, you will eventually end up betrayed on the cross.

~G. Fink

Sean Smith

September 18, 2003, 05:18 PM

Probably because Libertarians are by definition uncompromising... either it is in the Constitution, or it ain't. ;)

Tamara

September 18, 2003, 05:33 PM

...either it is in the Constitution, or it ain't. ;)

Boy, this is when you know you've hit a real communications gulf. Does the above sound loony to you? :uhoh:

Gordon Fink

September 18, 2003, 06:40 PM

Sean, we Libertarians don’t compromise our principles, but within the framework of those principles, there is obviously room for compromise. For example, we don’t like taxes, but we know that government, however minimal, must be funded, so compromises will have to be made on how and how much to fund government.

Compare that to a “pro-Second Amendment” Republican who would vote for a ban on “assault weapons” just because he thinks it would help him win votes with suburban soccer moms.

~G. Fink

Aces

September 18, 2003, 06:49 PM

It evidently sounds loony to some SC justices, past and present. Yes, some were even appointed by Rep. presidents.Yet there's no way to know how a judge's views will "evolve" after they are appointed.Let the Dems appoint the next few justices and wave the 2nd AM buh-bye.
To think the Republicans or Libertarians can be anything more than speed bumps on the slippery slope,is naive in my opinion.There will ALWAYS be an alternative choice offering the masses the world and a bag of chips. What are you going to offer instead? Freedom? Good luck with that.

keederdag

September 18, 2003, 06:56 PM

Sounds like you've lost all hope Aces, That's a bad place to be. But I get the feeling that you'll keep trying or you would'nt be here huh?:)

Aces

September 18, 2003, 07:07 PM

Haven't lost all hope, we still live in the the greatest country in history.
However,human nature often leads people down the path of least resistance and there's no shortage of people who will use that to their advantage to gain power and influence.

keederdag

September 18, 2003, 07:27 PM

As long as were still trying, there's still hope. The really funny thing is, is that everone that has posted here is on the same side. We have only argued about the best way to implement our collective ideals. THAT IS VERY INCOURAGING.:D

Moparmike

September 18, 2003, 08:00 PM

Wow. Good reading.

On libertarianism, the only thing I cant fully sell myself on is pulling government controls/influence completely out of the corporate/industrial world. Maybe someone can help me out.

This upcoming election will be my first presidential election to vote in. I too was a Klinton supporter (not *******, and not when the AWB and health crap started) back in my youth (read 9-17yrs of age), especially the (shudder) Monica crap (not the lying, but the fact that it was no one's business). I wasnt a Bush supporter, and if I told my reasons I would get flamed and have the thread shut down. As much as I hate to admit it, I did support the cardboard-cutout we know as Gore. A small bit did I support him, the same way one supports the "forgetting" of mosquitoes on the Ark before you realize what it would do to the ecosystem.

Anyway, I have decided that my vote will indeed be one for the LP, odds of election be damned. Honestly, I would completely support a ban of all political parties on the surface.:scrutiny: Only on the surface, because even though I am completely and utterly tired of the labeling by party affiliation and general crap that all parties spew, they are needed. Parties are needed to help push ideas to the masses and help elect those who would enact the ideas that the public supports.

I still hate political parties as a general rule though.:cuss: :fire:

Glock Glockler

September 18, 2003, 08:13 PM

Danimal,

I think I can speak for many on this board, we probably would consider voting Democrat or Republican if they showed that they'd be willing to move in our direction. It's the fact that they're both taking us to hell, just to different directions at different speeds, so why am I going to take an active part in helping it?

I worked on the campaign for our Republican Governor Craig Benson, not because he's perfect though I do think he's damn good, but because he's a step in the right direction. It's simply because I feel that there is nothing to be gained from voting for most Republicans that I do not vote for them.

If they actually brought some type of value to the table I think you'd see more people voting for them.

Cactus

September 18, 2003, 08:52 PM

[i]Originally posted by Tamara:[i]
'Long as he votes like a libertarian, he can call himself a Martian for all I care.

It seems that you have unwittingly hit upon both the source of the Libertarian Parties problem AND the potential solution.

[i]Originally posted by Glock Glockler:[i]
I think I can speak for many on this board, we probably would consider voting Democrat or Republican if they showed that they'd be willing to move in our direction.

Why should either of the major parties move in YOUR direction? Libertarians represent 0.5% of the vote in presidential elections. This is no more signifigant than the Socialist Workers Party! No party is going to change for such a small group of people who seem to be unreliable.

You don't change a party by waiting for it to move in "your" direction. You change it from the INSIDE. The Republican Party was considered the party of the "country club" set at one time. Social and religious conservatives moved into the party, and over time, moved the party in the direction THEY desired. This is how the Libertarian Party will become effective, not by "protest" voting.

The "Free State" organizers are not waiting for some state to invite them in, they are going to move in and attempt to force change.

I really do like some of the Libertarian ideas (and dislike others) but the political ignorance of Libertarians is just astounding sometimes.
:banghead:

Mark Tyson

September 18, 2003, 09:05 PM

I've never been able to buy the LP's economic platform. It is so recklessly over the top that is sounds as if it were written by a gang of 19th century robber barons. Libertarians seem to expect perfection from the government but forgive the sins of the market. Their total trust in market forces to solve nearly all social problems seems incredibly irresponsible.

They also trust corporations too much. Corporations can be just as inimcal to personal freedom as governments. If we emasculate the government to the extent that libertarians want, what is going to stop the rich from simply using their wealth to suppress any legal challenge? Some anarchists even go so far as to want a private legal system. Just look at the problems faced by private prisons these days for a glimpse of where that road will take us.

Personal responsibility is something worth pursuing, sure. But there's some things your average citizen can't do. I can't test my food for impurities for example. I can't see into the wiring of every appliance I buy to see if it's defective. Do away with the FDA and consumer protection laws and we'll get a first hand look at how dangerous household appliances can be.

Similarly, do away with workplace safety regulations and child labor laws and see just how fast teenagers drop out of school to work in dangerous, unhealthy conditions. Of course there won't BE any public schools to drop out of once the libertarians have their way. Just who is going to educate those who can't afford private schooling? I don't think any entrepreneur is going to beat a path to the inner city or rural Appalacia to set up a private school.

Anarchists and libertarians do not seem to want to admit that we need something besides the market. The free market is not a magic panacea for all of society's ills. It is one institution among several, one that has to be controlled if we want to minimize its externalities, like pollution.

And how are they going to protect the environment, anyway? If we reliquish all that public land in the west to private hands(read: sale to the wealthy) just imagine what's going to happen to it. For some reason I don't want to see our national parks turned into exclusive resorts for the well heeled or nuclear waste disposal stations.

What about pollution? Without the EPA nobody is going to ensure that our water and air are clean. I don't know about you, but I don't have the cash on hand to take a multi-million dollar coporation to court for polluting my drinking water.

Then there's the incredibly callous position on welfare, which is to say: there will be none. The poor will have to rely on private charity. What if private charity is not enough? Libertarians tell you that donations will go up once we start slashing taxes left and right. But what makes you think people will have any money left over to give when under the libertarian system everyone will have to provide for their own health care, education and retirement? People want a government that does as least something to take care of the underprivileged, some kind of minimum social safety net. Some on this board apparrantly don't mind the idea of leaving the unfortunate to die in the street. Fortunately most Americans seem to feel at least some obligation to take care of their fellow citizens.

Could it be that the reason there is no libertarian country out there is because nobody wants one? The world - 180+ countries - is an awfully big market, and the libertarian product just isn't selling. Isn't this what libertarians are always preaching about the benefits of the market: survival of the fittest?

Any ideology worth its salt tries to find a workable compromise between the ideal and the practical. Some rules are necessary in any society. Real anarchy is a pretty ugly thing. While I like the basic idea of personal responsibility that is at the core of libertarian philosophy, I have to conclude that libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism or whatever) does not address the 21st century.

Glock Glockler

September 18, 2003, 11:31 PM

Why should either of the major parties move in YOUR direction?

Because if they do not they are going to have trouble on their hands by people 1) voting Libertarian en masse, as more and more people are getting fed up with the way things are going, or 2) a bloody revolution in this country, as people will not tolerate a police state, and that's where they're taking us.

don't change a party by waiting for it to move in "your" direction. You change it from the INSIDE.

Internal and external pressure are needed for change, and it isn't necessary to discard one by persuing the other. Why should a party change if they are not forced to do so to counter an outside threat? Even political parties are not exempt from inertia. The Democrats have soften their stance on gun control because it cost them votes. External Pressure.

Corporations can be just as inimcal to personal freedom as governments.

Yeah, it was actually Microsoft that went and killed Vicki Weaver, and it was Walmart that threatened me with jail or death if I did not give them 30% of my gross income.

If we emasculate the government to the extent that libertarians want, what is going to stop the rich from simply using their wealth to suppress any legal challenge?

How is only having laws against actions that infringe on people's rights going to allow Bill Gates to murder people and get away Scott Free?

But there's some things your average citizen can't do. I can't test my food for impurities for example.

I also can't build a car, that's why I hire a company to do it for me. Ever hear of Underwriter's laboritories or Consumer's Reports? Why can the market not provide an equivilant for food and drugs? Is it the stellar job the govt does paving roads that convinces you of their worthiness to tell me what drugs and surgeries I am allowed to get? Either I am my own free man or I am not, and if a govt can stop me from taking whatever medication I damn well please then I am not free.

Similarly, do away with workplace safety regulations and child labor laws and see just how fast teenagers drop out of school to work in dangerous, unhealthy conditions.

Would you work in a place that was dangerous and unsanitary? I wouldn't, I won't even tolerate an employer being verbally abusive, but for some reason you think that workplace conditions as they are now would go to hell simply because the law against it is gone? I guess I must be a raging alvoholic because there's no law against me being one.

I don't think any entrepreneur is going to beat a path to the inner city or rural Appalacia to set up a private school.

Is there any money to be made in doing so? I do see car companies building economy cars to sell to people without much disposable income, or do you think the govt should give out cars to the economically disadantaged?

One of the reasons Appalacia is as poor as it is is due to the minimum wage law. If you got rid of that business would have a lot reason to invest there, but now there is simply no financial reason to go there because you have to pay them the same as you pay people in the economically stronger areas.

For some reason I don't want to see our national parks turned into exclusive resorts for the well heeled or nuclear waste disposal stations

Why should you be exempt from paying the market price for something? Should the govt seize and redistribute the nice resorts in Southern Florida because wealthy people frequent them? Why would people take that land and dump toxic waste on it, would you do that to your land, especially if the contamination it would cause to the land of others would get you sued?

Without the EPA nobody is going to ensure that our water and air are clean

Will they be polluting only your air and water? I reckon that to pollute your air and water they'd have to do it to a few people as well, maybe you can start a class action law suit, or maybe you can start a non-profit foundation that people can donate to that would sue polluting entities.

What if private charity is not enough?

Listen, buddy, you think it's callous not to donate to others but it's not callous to force people at gunpoint to "donate" to others? If you want me to donate to a charity, ask me to do so, maybe I will and maybe I wont, but you will personally make me into an enemy if you try to use a 3rd party to force me at gunpoint.

Fortunately most Americans seem to feel at least some obligation to take care of their fellow citizens.

Then you should have no trouble finding people to voluntariy donate, now should you?

Could it be that the reason there is no libertarian country out there is because nobody wants one?

Hmmm, but people do seem to want to go to the countries that are more libertarian than others, or am I imagining that people want to come here, they really want to go to China and Cuba. The problem is that in every country there are enough people who would rather impose their will on others as opposed to just leaving them alone. Combine this atitude with multiple factions and you have the present situation.

Moparmike

September 18, 2003, 11:55 PM

We have all watched our government happily leap into the express elevator to Hell, and now we watch this thread do the same thing. Lets try to keep the thread sounding a little nicer. Its been good so far, but it is building up speed toward those open elevator doors.

Keith

September 19, 2003, 12:27 AM

But what makes you think people will have any money left over to give when under the libertarian system everyone will have to provide for their own health care, education and retirement?

You ALREADY pay for your own health care, education and retirement, along with all of the incredible waste and inefficiency inherent in having to pay salaries for millions (yes, millions!) of bureaucrats who work for the government to dispense the money they take away from you! And you don't have any choices about how that money is spent - that's all decided for you by those same wise bureaucrats.

There is no free lunch. You either keep your own money and decide for yourself how you want to spend it, or you give it to some slimey politician who wants to buy voter blocks by doling out YOUR money to special interest groups.

The average American loses 70% of his income right now to taxes - I know that sounds high, but plenty of smart people have calculated all the income and sales taxes as well as all the "hidden" taxes you pay on everything from telephones, to fuel to car registration. And this leaves out the fact that you must pay all business and corporate taxes which are passed along to the consumer in the form of higher costs.

And along with all of that, the Government Accounting says that 40% (FORTY FREAKING PERCENT!) of all government money is wasted.

If you cut government in half, you'd increase your salary by something like 35%, instantly.

AND, your buying power would increase because you wouldn't have to pay all the business and corporate taxes added to everything you buy. You could get a decent IRA that would see that you aren't stretching that Social Security money by eating dog food some day. You could send your kid to a better college. Get that health plan that includes dental...

AND, with less taxes American products would be much cheaper to produce, giving us an incredible edge in the world economy. And low unemployment to go along with the increased wages and buying power.

Do you get it yet?

Keith

Kurt

September 19, 2003, 09:08 AM

We still have to work hard within the system we have, and give our vote to someone who can win.

cordex

September 19, 2003, 11:15 AM

We still have to work hard within the system we have, and give our vote to someone who can win.
Okay, Kurt. Maybe you'll answer my question then.
What happens when the only candidate that has a chance of winning an election is of the "more evil" main party (depending on your outlook). If you usually vote Republican because they are "less evil" and have a chance of winning ... what happens if the Democrat candidate is the only one with even a chance of winning? Do you vote Democrat because that is working "within the system we have" and "giv our vote to someone who can win"?

Seriously ... do you always vote for the winning party, or do you sometimes vote Republican even if they have no chance of winning because you refuse to vote for the Democrats?

Or what about - as Tamara touched on - when the Republican candidate's platform is as repulsive as the Democrat's?

I have to laugh whenever I hear the oft-repeated "We're tough, real-world, right-thinking and politically savvy because we vote for someone who can win by [i]working within the system. Anyone who doesn't vote like we do is just a stupid beatnik who wastes their vote.".
The people you get elected (when you can) work hand in hand with the people you work to keep out of office (when you can't) to do the things that you wish to prevent - but does that deter you? No! "Compromise!", you say. "Vote for the guy that is going to win, surely then he will help you out.", you say. I'd say the extent of your political savvy is finding another path towards the same ultimate goal. Heck, from what we've seen from the Republicans in recent times, it might not be all that slower.

I bet if it turns out that the only candidate who can win an election is a Democrat, you'll still vote Republican ... "just in case".
But <diety> help the libertarian who votes for his guy "just in case" - they're just latte-sipping idealists who are throwing away their vote.

BigG

September 19, 2003, 12:02 PM

But <diety> help the libertarian who votes for his guy "just in case" - they're just latte-sipping idealists who are throwing away their vote. Yes, Cordex, I think you finally have it. :D

Hyperbole aside, the L/ls have not a snowball's chance in hades and you are casting your vote to SPITE everybody else, not to elect somebody. That's what's called a SPOILER, like Ross Perot. You can look it up. :rolleyes: Self righteous posturing by the L/ls says "look at me," and I for one find it about as endearing as the posturing of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Jimma Carta. :barf:

cordex

September 19, 2003, 12:42 PM

Self righteous posturing by the L/ls says "look at me," and I for one find it about as endearing as the posturing of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Jimma Carta.
But it is oh-so attractive when done by someone with an (R) after their name, I tell you what. :)
you are casting your vote to SPITE everybody else, not to elect somebody.
Just as you might do if your Republican candidate didn't have a snowball's chance, right? Or (I ask yet again) would you vote for the Democrat because then you'd be voting to elect someone?

Does no one else see the hypocrisy in that?

Marko Kloos

September 19, 2003, 12:52 PM

Hyperbole aside, the L/ls have not a snowball's chance in hades and you are casting your vote to SPITE everybody else, not to elect somebody. That's what's called a SPOILER, like Ross Perot. You can look it up.

A wasted vote is when you do not vote your conscience.

Is it so hard to imagine that there are people out there who cannot vote Republicrat out of conviction? Why do you think that libertarian-voting folks are all just latte-sipping, beret-wearing intellectual snobs who merely want to "spite" everybody? Is moral conviction only present in Republicans?

Libertarians know damn well that their candidates have no chance of winning any major election: we are too outnumbered by the prohibitionists, moral crusaders, and entitlement prostitutes out there.

I don't care if my vote is "wasted" because it goes to a candidate who will only net 0.5% of the total vote. I don't care whether my vote keeps a Republican out of office, or helps a Democrat into office. In the long run, it might be a good thing if more Republicans lost some elections thanks to the "wasted" libertarian votes, because only then will the Republicans move away from their center position that makes them virtually indistinguishable from Democrats. If they realize that libertarian ideals pull enough voters to jeopardize their candidates in close elections, maybe they'll start incorporating some of those ideals.

Dorrin79

September 19, 2003, 01:12 PM

I don't see how voting for someone whose positions are opposite to mine in many, many ways is "being reasonable".

Hence why I don't vote for repubs very often. Some of them are better than others, a few (Ron Paul comes to mind) are almost indistiguishable from the libertarian ideal. I make my decision on a case by case basis.

But don't call me a "spoiler" or "spiteful" just because I choose not to act against my own interests.

:rolleyes:

BigG

September 19, 2003, 01:29 PM

In the long run, it might be a good thing if more Republicans lost some elections thanks to the "wasted" libertarian votes, because only then will the Republicans move away from their center position that makes them virtually indistinguishable from Democrats. Honestly, Marko, if I didn't have the respect for your intellect I would think you were crazy. :rolleyes: A person who honestly says they cannot distinguish betw a Rep and a Dem is either unschooled or unobservant as hell. :o

The only thing we have going for us is TIME and we need some friendly judiciary appointments if anything is going to change in the way I know we all want it to. Your method of obstruction will ensure that more dumos are elected, ergo Hillary or Bill or = is appointed to the USSC and then you will whine and moan at least as much as you do now.

If your idea is to let the republic crumble due to SPITE, why am I not reading about more crazy people going off and killing authority figures? It would at least make good reading and a hell of a lot better STATEMENT than these trivial posturings by you L/ls. :uhoh:

Marko Kloos

September 19, 2003, 01:47 PM

BigG,

where is the Promised Land you're trying to achieve? Right now we have a Republican-controlled Senate, House, and Oval Office. The sitting President, a Republican, has indicated that he would sign an extension of the AWB. I bet you anything that he hasn't even considered the abolishment of the '89 import ban enacted by his dad. When are we going to see some pro-gun legislation? What mythical constellation do the stars have to take?

All I have seen out of this administration so far has been the further demolishment of the Bill of Rights via Patriot Act, a costly and wholly unneccessary foreign entanglement that hasn't made us any safer, and the creation of yet another gargantuan federal super-agency. Forgive me if I cannot bring myself to vote for these folks, just because the other folks would be so much worse. As far as things are going right now, I can't really say that Gore could have done a more thorough job wiping his butt with the Bill of Rights.

The republic will be destroyed because too many people vote for the very folks who regard the BoR as an obstacle to Perfect Government. It will be destroyed because too many people are willing to trade their freedoms for the perception of safety. It will be destroyed because you cannot get elected if you don't promise enough people Free Government Stuff.

At least I'll be able to say that I didn't vote to aid in its destruction, and that I didn't give my consent by proxy.

Sean Smith

September 19, 2003, 01:49 PM

There are important differences between Democrats and Republicans. For instance, Republicans want to rob you blind, while Democrats want to tax you until you are too poor to rob.

BigG

September 19, 2003, 02:02 PM

At least I'll be able to say that I didn't vote to aid in its destruction, and that I didn't give my consent by proxy. You've got a bad case of self-righteousness, son. :uhoh: You really need to stop reading Jimma Carta's biography. :eek:

Marko Kloos

September 19, 2003, 02:10 PM

You're helping to erode your rights and mine by voting for the clowns who dismantle them, and you have the nerve to call me self-righteous?

Listen, if your candidates cannot win on their own merits and require the libertarian vote to beat the Democrats, then maybe the flaw is with their philosophy, not with mine.

BigG

September 19, 2003, 02:25 PM

Yep, self righteous is somebody who will kill anybody else for daring to call him self righteous. ;)

Marko Kloos

September 19, 2003, 02:29 PM

We must be speaking different languages here. Where in my previous posts have I suggested killing you or anyone else?

Would you care to move the discussion back to the topic at hand, or were you planning to continue this ad hominem stuff?

cordex

September 19, 2003, 02:32 PM

A person who honestly says they cannot distinguish betw a Rep and a Dem is either unschooled or unobservant as hell.
Which party protects the BoR as a whole instead of picking and choosing?
Which party works to decrease gov't spending?
Which party works to make the gov't smaller?
Which party works to make the gov't less intrusive?

Democrats and Republicans differ only in the path they take. Their destination is the same.
But we're unobservant as hell because we don't just look on the surface?
Yep, self righteous is somebody who will kill anybody else for daring to call him self righteous.
I disagree with your definition. Regardless, I still fail to see how it applies in the situation.

Shootin' Buddy

September 19, 2003, 02:55 PM

BigG said:
The only thing we have going for us is TIME and we need some friendly judiciary appointments if anything is going to change in the way I know we all want it to.

The thing is, a Libertarian is not an extreme right-wing Republican. A true extreme right-wing Republican is farther from a Libertarian than is a middle of the road Democrat. So to presume that a Libertarian would automatically prefer a Republican over a Democrat is to misunderstand what Libertarianism stands for. I know several Libertarians who consider voting Democrat as choosing the best of a bad lot. Republicans are only pro-freedom on certain issues. Democrats are pro-freedom on many other issues. A libertarian ends up torn between the two if he has to choose one or the other and could go either way. On this particular board you'll see more of the Republican looking Libertarians than the Democratic looking Libertarians because RKBA is a big issue here. But in other circles, a Libertarian looks like an extreme left-wing Democrat.

Anyway, all that to say, I'm no happier with a Republican president than I am with a Democrat president. So if my voting straight Libertarian causes a Democrat to acheive office I just shrug my shoulders and look forward to acquiring those liberties that Democrats bring.

Don

Keith

September 19, 2003, 03:02 PM

Republicans are only pro-freedom on certain issues. Democrats are pro-freedom on many other issues.

I can't think of any issues where democrats are "pro-freedom"... Maybe abortion rights, but even that is a wash if you consider the rights of the child.
So, where are democrats pro-freedom?

Keith

BigG

September 19, 2003, 03:11 PM

Pro freedom democrats Ain't that a contradiction in terms? How about rob from the haves and give to the have nots? Where does that fit in with pro freedom? :uhoh:

cordex

September 19, 2003, 03:28 PM

How about rob from the haves and give to the have nots? Where does that fit in with pro freedom?
Sure doesn't seem to, does it? Pretty statist and wrong, if you ask me.

Then again, so do a lot of the Republican supported policies ... like letting them tap the phones and raid the home of any jaywalker.
Jaywalkers are terrorists according to the Patriot Act, you know.
Section 802.a, section 4 includes:
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
[...]

But I've got to vote for the winner, right? Or more accurately, the guy you want to win. Even if they support policies like stealing from the haves to give to the have nots, or want to be able to label everyone a terrorist. No thanks.

Dorrin79

September 19, 2003, 03:28 PM

traditionally, Democrats (or perhaps more accurately, left-liberals) have been supporters of many civil liberties

Privacy rights, criminal rights, seperation of church and state, freedom of speech, etc.

They of course muck it up by being anti-gun, and at the very least ambiguous when it comes to capitalism. Some are practically socialists.

traditionally, Republicans have been pro-capitalism and pro-gun, but a lot iffier on civil liberties.

Nowadays (since the end of the Cold War, although I'm not sure if that has anything to do with it) both groups have moved closer to general authoritarianism, with the Repubs supporting welfare (both corporate and ghetto-style) and passing anti-gun legislation, and the Democrats supporting speech restrictions (hate speech rules, campus speech codes, censorship) and violating due process and privacy whenever it suits them (DoJ under Clinton, etc.)

I won't even go into the wholehearted support both parties give the immoral and stupid War on (some) Drugs.

At this point a vote for either party (although there are specific candidates who are exceptions to this) is a vote for increasing government encroachment on our liberties. Back in the day there was a trade-off, you knew which liberties you put at risk depending on which party ou supported. Nowadays, both parties are all too eager to shred what's left of our government's recognition of our inherent rights. You have to be deliberately oblivious to not realize this.

Not to mention that ad hominem attacks aren't exactly a respected debate tactic

:scrutiny:

Jeff Timm

September 19, 2003, 03:28 PM

The incredibly brilliant and lovely Tamara asked:
The thing that most cripples the Libertarian party?

Here in Ohio I associated with the Libertarian Party back in the 1980s.

The people I met were infinitely more interested in talking, than actually doing something. Much like congress, no three libertarians could agree on a pizza order, much less on a ballot measure, or candidate, to support.

Geoff
Who was terribly disappointed by the Ls in the 1980s.
Who was purged by the Democrat Party in the 1970's, along with the War Hero Democrats.:cool:

Danimal

September 19, 2003, 03:28 PM

At least I'll be able to say that I didn't vote to aid in its destruction, and that I didn't give my consent by proxy.

And what exactly do you think saying "I told you so" will do to help anything?

Have you EVER in your life looked at someone who was saying "I told you so" and thought ANYTHING other than "Boy, what an jerk"? Please recognize that is not an ad hom attack, but rather an honest assessment of people in general who offers smarmy observations at a time when something a bit more substantive is needed.

1. Libertarians don't have a chance in hell of being elected or controling any substantive part of a legislative agenda, and they acknowledge as much. Yet their strategy does not change. :banghead: If they were serious, and the stakes are as high as they try to tell us, why are they not doing something different? It's the equivalent of walking around 1939 Munich and muttering that THEY didn't vote for Hitler. That is the zenith of a Libertarian's practical political contribution.

2. Libertarians running for office don't even try to be serious candidates, or support serious candidates, or else they might have to make good on all their bravado. They have no answer for this. None. Except to blame the other parties for the stranglehold they have on cash and media, and brainwashing, or sheepleism.

3. When push comes to shove, some Libertarians seem fall back on self-righteousness and "I told you so!". At the end of day, their concerns are with themselves - a seemingly accurate assessment of Libertarianism, where concerns for the Republic are eroded into a playground version of "I've got mine." Libertarianism is a fine philosophy for personal conduct, but probably not for the governance of the most powerful nation on earth.

4. Libertarianism struggles to disassociate itself from the major parties by being a no-compromise party - which is completely impractical in a democratic system where, good or bad, EVERYTHING is based on compromise. If they tried to be successful, they would inevitably become indistinguishable from the parties they despise.

5. Libertarians, the intellectual saviors of our nation, have concluded that our country is headed down the toilet, but the best they have come up with is to self-righteously remove themselves from the public process by marginalizing their democratic participation, and instead of educating people, getting their ideas out and building a base, they support unelectable candidates that only serve to marginalize their effort. If that is the best solution they have to fixing our problems, perhaps we should be grateful they don't actually risk something and get involved.

5. Lastly, Texas Congressman Ron Paul is a Republican. Libertarians say he is a libertarian, yet he runs as a Republican. He caucuses as a Republican. It says Republican on his biography. Is it because Ron really is a Libertarian, but he is smart enough to realize that as a Libertarian he could not win, so he registers as a Republican? Like it or not, as a Republican, Ron contributes to maintaining a majority for Republicans - those same Republicans who, according to Libertarians are flushing America down the cosmic crapper. His Republican presence contributes to who gets the committee chairs and what legislation is heard and passed. It's NOT just about how he votes. Isn't that (1) compromising within a system that Libertarians don't like, and (2) recognizing that working within a system is more productive than throwing stones from the outside?

Which leads me to my final point. If no one takes Libertarians seriously, trying to act as a threat to Republican control carries no weight. Libertarians always talk about not compromising, so it's not like Republicans would get Libertarian voters, would they? So where is the threat? Any Libertarian who would vote for a Republican would vote for the Republican anyway because it is the pragmatic thing to do since the Libertarians are not a serious choice. So where is the big threat? If you can't influence Republicans to vote better from the outside, would it not make more sense to try the Ron Paul approach and work on the Republicans from the inside?

Shootin' Buddy

September 19, 2003, 03:30 PM

What freedoms do Democrats favor? Let's see,
Freedom of speech and of the press. Democrats treasure this freedom much more than Republicans do.
Freedom of religion. Democrats aren't always friendly to the born-agains, but they don't allow the born-agains to force their agenda down everyone else's throat (which is what the Republicans have done in recent years. Democrats respect freedom from religion (which is an important aspect of freedom of religion).
Republicans increase police power over citizens. Democrats usually reduce police power over citizens. Democrats are very big on making sure all the T's are crossed and the I's dotted in law courts and on respecting the rights of the accused to a scrupulously fair trial.
Freedom from warrantless searches. Avid drug warriors within the Republican ranks are busily tearing down the 4th Amendment. Democrats are still defending it.
Freedom to do what you want to with your own body -- that'd be letting you sleep with who you want, marry who you want, love who you want. There are a lot of homosexual libertarians, and they are rarely fond of the Republican party.
Democrats are less often drug warriors than Republicans are (and again, that goes back to the right to do what you want with your own body).
Democrats are more likely to be sympathetic to legalizing victimless crimes.

Libertarians are not real big on foreign entanglements and are deeply divided on military issues. The Democrats are in favor of reducing military spending, which ideally has the side effect of reducing foreign entanglements.

Here's one I'm big on: assisted suicide issues. The Republicans want people to suffer their way into an inevitable but natural death. The Democrats, once again, take the side of letting people do what they want with their own bodies. I want to be able to choose the day I die, without worrying about getting my doctor in trouble for helping me and without having to hide it from my family so they can't be there when I pass on.

In fact, the more I think about it, I would probably be a Democrat if it weren't for the fact that the RKBA is a watershed issue for me.

Don

Dorrin79

September 19, 2003, 03:32 PM

would it not make more sense to try the Ron Paul approach and work on the Republicans from the inside?

show me a republican that believes as Ron Paul does, and will vote like him, and that republican will get my vote.

I owe allegiance to no party, and am very tired of hearing others say I should, just because the republicans are perhaps a tiny increment less tyrannical than the Democrats.

Shootin' Buddy

September 19, 2003, 03:44 PM

The actual problem with the Libertarian party is that they are too honest. They don't BS you about what they think and plan to do. This of course comes across as not 'serious' and as completely impractical, because American voters are used to being lied to.

For a very short while, I was employed as a used-car salesman. In one of the sales meetings, the speaker said, "You'll hear people tell you that they want an honest dealer that they don't have to dicker with, that's always up front and honest with them. That's a lie. The honest dealerships go out of business. People always buy from the most dishonest, disreputable dealership in town."

So yes, if the Libertarians really wanted to win, they could play the dishonest, disreputable car dealership game. That'd make them a serious party. But the Libertarians aren't interested in "winning" at a crooked game. They're interested in changing things.

Don

cordex

September 19, 2003, 03:47 PM

It's the equivalent of walking around 1939 Munich and muttering that THEY didn't vote for Hitler.
Instead, they should have voted for Hitler and tried to change the Nazi party from the inside?

And I too would vote for Ron Paul-esque republicans.

MicroBalrog

September 19, 2003, 03:51 PM

In fact, the more I think about it, I would probably be a Democrat if it weren't for the fact that the RKBA is a watershed issue for me.

I'm a liberal and I'm more pro-gun than, say, GWB or C.Heston.:neener:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/ak-heston_500w.jpg

Keith

September 19, 2003, 03:57 PM

Freedom of speech and of the press.

By introducing legislation that bans citizens from political ads withing 90 days of an election? By introducing legislation to make speech a hate crime? Both issues clearly contradicted by the first amendment.

Freedom of religion.

By banning religious expression in clear contradiction to the First Amendment?

Republicans increase police power over citizens. Democrats usually reduce police power over citizens.

Yes, we've clearly seen that with the gun bans that make criminals out of citizens.

Freedom from warrantless searches.

Yes, it's obvious that police are more restrained in democratic strongholds like California and New York... oh wait - those are the worst places aren't they?

Freedom to do what you want to with your own body

That's right - the democrats have introduced all kinds of bills to legalize gay marriage, etc... oh wait, they didn't did they? They just talked about it before the elections and then forgot about it.

Democrats are less often drug warriors than Republicans

Which is why marijuana is legal in the most solidly republican state of the union (Alaska), but illegal everywhere else. Another case where the democrats say one thing and do another.

Democrats are more likely to be sympathetic to legalizing victimless crimes.

Like gun ownership?

Keith

Danimal

September 19, 2003, 03:59 PM

Instead, they should have voted for Hitler and tried to change the Nazi party from the inside?

I was hoping you might walk away with something a bit more substantive. I am not asking you to vote for Hitler. But if things are as bad as Libertarians claim, should virtual non-participation be their maximum contribution? Is that the best they can do? Or does is come back to the idea that the only way Libertarians would have a legitimate shot is to encourage and wait for the end of civilization so they can come in on a white horse?

And to your other point.....Ron Paul is a Republican. He helps Republicans push an agenda that Libertarians think is an abomination. Moreover, he hasn't accomlished one single thing that wasn't approved by a majority of his Republican colleagues. Isn't this a contradiction? Or at best, an odious compromise?

Sean Smith

September 19, 2003, 05:00 PM

Tam sez:

Sean Smith,
...either it is in the Constitution, or it ain't.

Boy, this is when you know you've hit a real communications gulf. Does the above sound loony to you?

You are confusing description with condemnation. I didn't say libertarianism was wrong, just that it is uncompromising by definition. You can't be a "compromising strict constructionist" ... that's like being a "moderate fanatic." How do you compromise when your ideology is very specific about banning everything that isn't in the Constitution? Maybe MicroBalrog can help us with that one. :D

telewinz

September 19, 2003, 05:01 PM

Lets see....by all accounts, the current government has been properly and legally elected. Yet when it governs as the majority requested through their votes, it's oppressive. OK, now I understand.:confused:

Sean Smith

September 19, 2003, 05:05 PM

Hitler became Chancellor within the framework of the Weimar Republic. His party got lots of votes (though no majority) and he got invited by President Hindenburg to form a coalition government. All by-the-book. So by your definition he couldn't be oppressive...?

Keith

September 19, 2003, 05:11 PM

Yet when it governs as the majority requested through their votes, it's oppressive.

A tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.

Keith

Dorrin79

September 19, 2003, 05:18 PM

telewinz

Lets see....by all accounts, the current government has been properly and legally elected. Yet when it governs as the majority requested through their votes, it's oppressive. OK, now I understand.

Are you being willfully obtuse? America is NOT an absolute democracy (thank Jeebus for that!)

By your definition, all current and any future laws restricting gun ownership, freedom of speech, etc. are perfectly O.K., because they were passed "as the majority requested through their votes"

:scrutiny:

Danimal

September 19, 2003, 05:48 PM

By your definition, all current and any future laws restricting gun ownership, freedom of speech, etc. are perfectly O.K., because they were passed "as the majority requested through their votes"

Now I am starting to see how the mind of the Libertarian works. There may be a vast difference between what is "right" and what is "legal". Parties do not always agree on those two. Depending on who is in power, there will always be a different interpretation regarding those differences. However, that is the framework for functioning in a democratic republic, and the price of admission is the acknowledgement that we don't always get out way, but we can always work at making it better. If we don't like something, we work to fix it within that framework.

So do Libertarians really want a democracy? And would they gracefully accept when people no longer wanted their leadership or ideas? The supposed freedom that Libertarianism brings would come with a buttload of personal responsibility. What if people don't want it? What then? The longer this goes on, the more I think Libertarians just want their own island to rule with absolutism, because there seems to be no allowances for functioning within the framework of a democracy.

Keith

September 19, 2003, 06:09 PM

So do Libertarians really want a democracy?

NO! We absolutely do not! We want a Constitutional Republic where government powers are clearly defined and limited. A democracy is what Jefferson called the "Tyranny of the Majority". Our forefathers wrote a Constitution and Bill of Rights to try and keep us from going down that awful road.

The supposed freedom that Libertarianism brings would come with a buttload of personal responsibility. What if people don't want it?

They can use their constitutionally protected right to whine, or they can move to some other country where their freedom is curtailed and they can live with no personal responsibility - Great Britain perhaps...

The longer this goes on, the more I think Libertarians just want their own island to rule with absolutism

??? We want government powers limited to those delegated it in the Constitution. We want civil liberties protected from government usurpation.
That's "absolutism"?

Keith

Danimal

September 19, 2003, 06:37 PM

??? We want government powers limited to those delegated it in the Constitution. We want civil liberties protected from government usurpation. That's "absolutism"?

Well, let's look at what you said just before that...

They can use their constitutionally protected right to whine, or they can move to some other country where their freedom is curtailed and they can live with no personal responsibility - Great Britain perhaps...

Yes Keith, I believe that is absolutism. Your way, or the highway. No matter how you slice it, you are undermining one of the major tennents of democracy - majority rule, with minority rights.

Glock Glockler

September 19, 2003, 07:24 PM

Danimal,

What's wrong with personal responsibility? If you're not going to be responsible for yourself, why should I via the govt, have to assume that responsibility for you? I don't want to be responsible for you or anyone else, I'll take care of my business and leave you alone if you do likewise.

Also, what is the alternative to personal responsibility? How do you get others to assume that responsibility without resorting to force?

And would they gracefully accept when people no longer wanted their leadership or ideas?

Well, that depends, are they going to try to use the arm of govt to force a bunch of crap down my throat that infringes on my rights. I will not accept others trying to force themselves on me, even if the law condones it, and I will resist violently if necessary. Just because there is a system of majority rule does not grant someone the right to infringe on my rights.

Keith

September 19, 2003, 07:27 PM

Yes Keith, I believe that is absolutism. Your way, or the highway.

Nope, not "my way", the Constitutional way. I refuse to give up my civil liberties because you don't want to accept your personal responsibilities.

Keith

Danimal

September 19, 2003, 08:07 PM

Guys, I believe in personal responsibility and I understand some of your frustration with the idiots that don't want to take it. But if you want the freedom to do whatever you want - all drugs legal, all firearms legal, live and let live - other people have the same choice, and they will not always choose what you want. So you either have a mechanism for dealing with those differences (democracy) or you resort to absolutism and some sort of Procrustean political system to enforce it. Since I don't see any evidence of a system to deal with different opinions in a Libertarian utopia, I can only assume, and partially based on previous statements, that absolutism is the only way Libertarianism would work - and that is a complete contradiction in philosophy since only a powerful and fearsome central government would be able to enforce your desires.

Tamara

September 19, 2003, 08:15 PM

Since I don't see any evidence of a system to deal with different opinions in a Libertarian utopia, I can only assume, and partially based on previous statements, that absolutism is the only way Libertarianism would work

I'm not too sure about that. Look at Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. There's a handy list of the types of things that Congress may pass laws about, with an additional set of ten strict restrictions on Congress in the first ten Amendments. Looks pretty darn libertarian to me...

Note that the first time Congress tried to ban an intoxicating substance, they at least realized they needed to pass a Constitutional amendment. Also, the first time they attempted to pass a federal gun law, the Supremes kicked them in the teeth on Constitutional grounds in the most widely misinterpreted Supreme Court decision of the 20th Century... (US v. Miller affirmed your right to own an M249 SAW with NO governmental interference...)

MicroBalrog

September 19, 2003, 08:26 PM

There's a handy list of the types of things that Congress may pass laws about

Which still authorised lots of stuff libertarians/Libertarians hate.:D

Danimal

September 19, 2003, 08:28 PM

Mark Tyson

September 19, 2003, 08:31 PM

Congress is authorized to pass laws for the "general welfare", a phrase that is never specifically identified. The framers understood that they could not predict every circumstance that future governments would need to address, so they included catch-all phrases and trusted that people would be able to adapt their government to changing times. This is not the same country that it was in 1789. We live in a new time with new needs. We need a government that can evolve and adapt, not stagnate and ossify.

Tamara

September 19, 2003, 08:35 PM

...and while we're on the topic of "democracy"...

Y'know how we like to make fun of strange foreign lands, where "everything not permitted (by the government) is forbidden"? Well, the US Constitution was supposed to present the exact opposite of that: Everything not specifically permitted to the government by the Constitution was forbidden to the Government. That's why the document (shorter than the owner's manual for a Toyota Corolla, and written in simpler English) carefully lays out everything the government is permitted (by you and me) to do. "Create the EPA" is not on the list. Is the Constitution the highest law of the land, or isn't it? Is this really a democracy? If 51% of the people decide that, for reasons best known to themselves, Danimal should load his pockets with bricks and jump into Puget Sound, does that make it right? I sure don't think so.

"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -Tom J., noted Constitutional authority, 1799

Tamara

September 19, 2003, 08:37 PM

What about state governments? Congress may be (refreshingly) constrained under Libertarian control, but what happens when our state legislatures start picking up the slack? I love states' rights, but Oregon is one of the biggest nanny states around....

By way of a Socratic answer, would it be legal for a state legislature to pass a law granting the police the power of summary roadside execution, or establishing an official state religion, without first withdrawing from the Union? If they may not violate those Constitutional provisions while remaining within the US, why may they violate Second Amendment provisions? ;)

Tamara

September 19, 2003, 08:39 PM

Which still authorised lots of stuff libertarians/Libertarians hate. :D

Which do you not understand, the libertarian ethos or Art. I, Sec. 8? :confused:

telewinz

September 19, 2003, 08:42 PM

"Hitler became Chancellor within the framework of the Weimar Republic. His party got lots of votes (though no majority) and he got invited by President Hindenburg to form a coalition government. All by-the-book. So by your definition he couldn't be oppressive...?"

Truth be known....Hitler was extremely popular with the German people till the bitter end of WW2. Only a very small minority of Germans felt Hitler was oppressive.

It's the same in present day America, only a very small minority consider our government oppressive if compared to other governments.

Marko Kloos

September 19, 2003, 08:45 PM

What about state governments? Congress may be (refreshingly) constrained under Libertarian control, but what happens when our state legislatures start picking up the slack?

Not a damn thing, if they want to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Article VI, the "supremacy clause", states that the Constitution, then federal law, then treaties are the supreme law of the land, and may not be violated on the state or local level. In other words, if the State of Tennessee decided that any of the BoR articles doesn't apply in TN, they would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Glock Glockler

September 19, 2003, 09:15 PM

all drugs legal, all firearms legal, live and let live - other people have the same choice, and they will not always choose what you want.

What is there for others to chose when the decision is what I want? It's none of their business what kind of gun I have or what kind of drugs I take, they're free to choose whatever kinds of drugs or guns they want, what's the problem?

Congress is authorized to pass laws for the "general welfare", a phrase that is never specifiaclly identified

Excellent point, which is another reason why the Constitution is a statist document and I don't use it as a pillar upon which my rights stand. The General Welfare clause basically gives the govt carte blanche to do what they want under the implied powers doctrine, and when coupled with the weakened 10th amendment the door is wide open for, well, exactly what we have now.

What about state governments? Congress may be (refreshingly) constrained under Libertarian control, but what happens when our state legislatures start picking up the slack? I love states' rights, but Oregon is one of the biggest nanny states around....

The question of the states should be up to the people of that state. If Oregon is a nanny state, deal with it and change it or move out. I'd rather deal with people in Concord NH than the Feds in Washington. I can keep an eye much better on the scum that live here as opposed to there.

If they may not violate those Constitutional provisions while remaining within the US, why may they violate Second Amendment provisions?

Hate to break it to you,Tam, but there are no Constitutional provisions that they would be violating. The only question is whether or not the other states can kick the rouge state out of the union.

In other words, if the State of Tennessee decided that any of the BoR articles doesn't apply in TN, they would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Marko, we've been over this a few times and you've never responded to my assertion that this theory is nonsense, please do so.

1 - The Bill of Right is NOT part of the Constitution. It was added after the Constitution was ratified as a check on the Constitution, as people felt that the Constitution gave way too much power to the Feds and a gaurantee was needed to protect the states and the people from Federal dominance. The BoR must therefore be regarded as seperate and Supreme to the Constitution.

By your incorrect rationale, if federal law is, in fact, the supreme law of the land, it matters not what the BoR says or what a state law may say regarding gun ownership. Federal law reigning supreme is just that.

2 - The BoR is a check on Federal power not on the power of the States. What sense does it make for the States, who are worried about the encroaching power of the Feds, to limit their power while placing an arm of the Federal govt as the final arbitrator of what they cannot do? Seems like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse to me.

Why is it that if a state govt is getting stupid, you insist that the Big Daddy Federal govt step in set them right? What shouldn't the people of that state correct that error?

BigG

September 19, 2003, 09:20 PM

if Glockgockler: that terrible word unhinges your whole argument. ;)
[states]would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. And? From whence proceeds this great political power to enforce the US Constitution?

Mark Tyson

September 19, 2003, 09:31 PM

Bill of rights not part of the constitution? Not part of the main body, maybe, but still part of the constitution. I always thought of an amendment as the same as an appendix in a book.

Marko Kloos

September 19, 2003, 09:48 PM

The Bill of Right is NOT part of the Constitution. It was added after the Constitution was ratified as a check on the Constitution, as people felt that the Constitution gave way too much power to the Feds and a gaurantee was needed to protect the states and the people from Federal dominance. The BoR must therefore be regarded as seperate and Supreme to the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is most definitely a part of the Constitution. It was added after ratification to fulfill a promise to the anti-Federalists, who agreed to ratify the Constitution if amendments were added which specifically protected individual liberties. (That's why we call them Constitutional Amendments.) The Federalists kept their word, and James Madison introduced 12 amendments during the First Congress in 1789. Ten of those were ratified by the states and took effect in 1791, making them part of the Constitution.

By your incorrect rationale, if federal law is, in fact, the supreme law of the land, it matters not what the BoR says or what a state law may say regarding gun ownership. Federal law reigning supreme is just that.

Read the Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the Constitution. It states that first the Constitution (including its amendments), then federal law, and then national treaties are the supreme law of the land, in that order. No federal or state law may contradict the Constitution. The ultimate arbiter of the Constitutionality of Federal or State laws is the Supreme Court, which first declared a Federal law unconstitutional in Marbury vs. Madison.

Why is it that if a state govt is getting stupid, you insist that the Big Daddy Federal govt step in set them right? What shouldn't the people of that state correct that error?

McCulloch vs. Maryland settled legally that the national government is supreme to the state governments when their spheres of responsibility overlap. The Civil War settled the matter militarily.

As for your question: in your quest for State rights uber alles, are you willing to trade a bunch of tyrants in D.C. for a bunch of tyrants in your home state? You may live in a fairly libertarian-leaning state, but do you think that the schools in the South would be desegregated if the Federal government hadn't forced the issue in the 1950s?

Glock Glockler

September 19, 2003, 10:19 PM

Marko,

The fact that they're called Amendments is evidence of nothing more than the successful propogation of a myth. The parts of the Bill of Rights should properly be called Articles. The Constitution contains limited powers that can be taken away or transfered through the amending process or when a convention is call by the people who are supposed to be the soverign authority.

Do you really want to include the rights that are protected by the BoR in a document that can be altered? Something like the First Judiciary Act of 1789, that was passed as a regular bill, would have been a proper example of an amendment.

Read the Supremacy Clause

I don't need to, it matters not what it says, it's part of the Constitution and the BoR is a check on it, and it therefore must be supreme to it. As I've said, for the Constitution to be Supreme grants the feds the power to trash the BoR is order to secure "the general welfare" and to do what's "necessary and proper". The BoR cannot be a check on the Constitution and part of it at the same time, they are two seperate documents.

The ultimate arbiter of the Constitutionality of Federal or State laws is the Supreme Court

I agree that a law by either the state or Federal govt cannot contradict the Constitution, so if a state started to coin money and engage in foreign treaties they would clearly be in violation of it. By the same token, if the Execuative Branch decided it was going to make law, they would be in violation of the Constitution (though they can sort of via vetos and executive orders). The difference is that the internal laws of a state or not the business of the Feds unless they are in conflict with the constitution (like coining money).

McCulloch vs. Maryland settled legally that the national government is supreme to the state governments when their spheres of responsibility overlap.

I don't know too much about that case, I'll get back to you on that one after I read some more about it, though I'm not going to take the decision of the SCOTUS as gospel because it's from the SCOTUS. Hang out a bit.

The Civil War settled the matter militarily.

A civil war is when 2 or more entities are fighting for the control of one govt, when did the South demand control of the Northern govt? Sorry but your example is nothing more than an attempted justification for imperialistic tyranny.

As for your question: in your quest for State rights uber alles, are you willing to trade a bunch of tyrants in D.C. for a bunch of tyrants in your home state?

Yes, I can deal with the scum here better than in DC. If the guys in Concord tried to do what the Feds do to us they'd find themselves at the short end of a rope. Keep your enemies close.

You may live in a fairly libertarian-leaning state, but do you think that the schools in the South would be desegregated if the Federal government hadn't forced the issue in the 1950s?

Great, so we empower the Feds to that end and then they shove forced "integration" and busing down everybody's throats. Thanks but no thanks, I'd prefer to deal with tyranny as close to my door as possible.

Cactus

September 20, 2003, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Tamara:
Everything not specifically permitted to the government by the Constitution was forbidden to the Government.

That is 180 degrees from the actual meaning. The Preamble to the Constitution is very vague as to what the government is established for: to provide domestic traquility, promote the general welfare, common defense, etc. It then lays out the responsibilities of the three branches to provide for these items. It grants very generalized abilities to the Congress for instituting taxation and passing laws to inact CONGRESS' interpretation of the Preamble.

The Bill of Rights was enacted to put limits on these broad powers granted Congress under the Constitution by recognizing the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights list the areas that Congress is specifically forbidden from interfering in.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that Congress is restricted to only specific items outlined in it. It states in it specific areas that the government is NOT allowed to interfere in. That is a HUGE difference. (The Tenth Amendment basically says that States are allowed to make their own laws unless they contradict Federal law, not that Congress is restricted to anything specific. This is further reiterated in the Fourtenth Amendment.)

Congress institutes many laws that may be wrong, ignorant or misguided, but that doesn't make them un-constitutional. You apparently feel that the EPA is un-constitutional because nowhere in the Constitution is it specifically mentioned.

What about the Air Force and Coast Guard? They are not specifically mentioned either! But they can be interpreted as being authorized under the common defense resposibility outlined in the Preamble. Just as the EPA can be interpreted as being authorized under the general welfare responsibility.

Should the Air Force, Coast Guard and EPA exist? That is arguable, they can be eliminated if that is the will of the people. But they are hardly un-constitutional.

A large part of the Constitution is about Congress instituting the will of the people. It has great latitude in doing so. To argue that any law you dislike is un-constitutional changes nothing and proves nothing. You can change that law under the provisions clearly outlined in the Constitution. You just have to convince a majority of the people of the virtues of your position!

And if a law IS un-constitutional as you claim? Go to court! The ACLU does all the time.

Tamara

September 20, 2003, 07:33 AM

Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that Congress is restricted to only specific items outlined in it.

Really? Let's see...

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If Congress had the broad and general power to do anything even tangentially referred to in the preamble, why the very specific list? I'd be interested to hear which scholars support the very interesting view of the Constitution you just provided, as it is directly counter to anything and everything I've ever read.

Thumper

September 20, 2003, 08:27 AM

Federalist Papers got right by you, huh, Cactus? Give 'em a read; they can be quite enlightening.

Mark Tyson

September 20, 2003, 09:27 AM

Yes, it's a very specific list, but it has a couple of ambiguous phrases in it such as "general welfare" and "necessary and proper". This was because when it was written the framers knew that they could not predict everything a government would have to do in the future. They had faith that future generations could fashion laws and government structures to deal with changing circumstances. If you shackle the government so it can't change you condemn it to die of irrelevance. For those of you out there who actually think that's a good idea, I wonder if you've ever seen real anarchy before. Ask some Albanians about anarchy sometime.

If the founding fathers were alive today, they would be worried about how to design a government that addresses today's needs and today's problems, not those of 1789. Read the federalist papers or the constitutional debates and you will see the words of very pragmatic men who were trying to build a workable society here and now, not some ideological castle in the sky.

Libertarians and anarchists however do not seem interested in making society work. They spend their time worrying about what amounts to coercion, what truly constitutes the initiation of force. Instead, why don't you guys consider that no matter how much a rugged individualist you think you are, you live in a community serviced by public roads, with employers and employees educated at the public dime, defended by a professional miiltary, where the rule of law and fair business practice is generally respected and enforced both formally and informally. You cannot benefit from society while giving nothing back. That's called squatting.

The private sector does a pretty crappy job of providing certain services; how do you make cleaning up a ghetto profitable for example? Because of their zealous devotion to the market, libertarians and anarchists will never admit this. They will never admit that the robber baron era ever took place in the US, or that corporations can be just as bad as governments. You get responses like I've gotten here: "Well, Bill Gates didn't kill Randy Weaver's wife, it was the government, etc." Unaccountable companies in the early 20th century killed plenty of people both directly through the use of strike busting hired thugs(company police) and by making people work in dangerous, unhealthy conditions for a pittance while providing little or no health care or other benefits. Libertarians will tell you that people won't have to work there, they can go somewhere else. Sure, fine, if there's another employer to go to. But in fact lots of people did work under these conditions(kids did too) quite voluntarily, because there was simply nowhere else to go or because they were fooled about the nature of their employment conditions. Then they were put up to their eyeballs in debt by their employers. The same thing happens in third world countries today.

If you don't constrain capitalism with government power it can be just as evil as communism. If you don't impose some humane standards on capitalism, you get lung cancer from working in coal mines. You get lost limbs from working on unsafe machinery. Freedom of enterprise means that you can deny housing, employment and services to blacks just because you don't like them. Boycott them you say? Yeah, and if everyone does it, you can boycott food, housing, health care . . . Without anti-discrimination laws, where would blacks be in the US today? The market solution to segregation was whites only drinking fountains.

These horrors and more can be consequences of untrammeled economic liberty.

I would love to believe the libertarians. I have no love of the government. I would love to believe that if only the big bad government got out of the way we'd all be living in a free market shang-ri-la. But that's a utopian vision, just like communism. What is the difference between being dominated by overwhelming economic force - such as a company that dominates the local economy - and overwhelming political force of an autocratic government? You've got plenty of countries out there that have a lot more government than we in the US do - the Danish countries for example have lots of government, yet still have a high standard of living. Now I wouldn't want to live there, but last time I checked Sweden wasn't exactly a hellhole. There you have all the things repulsive to libertarians: big government, big taxes, big regulations. Yet they have a high standard of living.

As I said, I don't want to live there. Hell, I think government is too big here in the states. But talking to libertarians and anarchists you'd think government was this black hole where all money and effort disappears, never to return. You would think that all money touched by the government sponteneously vaporizes, while money touched by the market is blessed and multiplies. To me, these seem like the words of zealots.

There's one more thing I don't like about how libertarians argue: their denigration of the average citizen. They will tell you that they believe that the average man can be trusted with all kinds of responsibilities and rights. Yet when it comes to discussing why we don't have a libertarian paradise already, guess who bears the brunt of their wrath? That's right, the very same Joe Blow average citizen, the very same person who's rights they say that they're fighting for! They're called sheeple, they're called idiots, they're called brainless statist cattle just for thinking that the state can help people out every now and then. And then they wonder why they don't get elected.

BigG

September 20, 2003, 10:11 AM

But... but... but... *splutter* TRUE LIBERTARIANISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED! :neener: /idiotic academician voice off :D

Glock Glockler

September 20, 2003, 05:04 PM

Big G,

I doubt you can everr get 2 people to agree on what pure libertarianism is. but what is blatantley evident is that areas that, all other things being equal, when a country move in a more libertarian direction it becomes more successful. China was nearly starving when it was trying to produce food via it's state run farms, but the govt "sold" the land to people through long term leases the production of food skyrocketed.

Govt usually creates far more problems than it solves. Freedom works.

Tamara,

I hate to say it, but I actually agree with Mark on what the Constitution allows, but don't take it to mean that I think it's a good thing. There is a type of reverence associated with "the founders" and the Constitution, they become sacred ground which we are not allowed to tread on much less question.

The fact is that the founders were not of one libertarian/practical mind, they were 55 delegates sent to Philadelphia for the express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and didn't have a shred of business even discussing a new form of govt. Some of the founders would be men with whom you'd feel quite comfortable and others you'd probably not want to be in the same room with (Benjamin Rush comes to mind). Many of them were ardent monarchist/statists who wanted an all powerful central govt (Hamilton), so maybe we should take a closer look at the founders and the Constitution.

It seems nice and neat, the duties listed in Article I, sec. 8, very limited, how could a govt limited to that get out of control? Throw into the mix a few phrases like "necessary and proper", "general welfare", and the interstate commerce clause, and you have the potential for something else entirely. Was that flexibility built into the Constitution to deal with new challenges (isn't that the purpose of an Amendment?) or was it to allow the Feds get tyrannical, kind of like they are right now?

Unaccountable companies in the early 20th century killed plenty of people both directly through the use of strike busting hired thugs(company police) and by making people work in dangerous, unhealthy conditions for a pittance while providing little or no health care or other benefits.

How were they unaccountable? Did contract law not apply to them? If they made a legal agreement with someone to pay them X amount and they did not come through why was the law not holding them to it? Did they force people to work in those condititons at gunpoint or were they doing it because they were better off as opposed to not doing it? Hate to break it to you, but the industrial revolution was pretty nasty in general, both in the US and abroad.

The private sector does a pretty crappy job of providing certain services; how do you make cleaning up a ghetto profitable for example?

How good of a job does the govt do in cleaning up ghettos? Before you push me to go into explicit detail about the numerous things the govt has done to create slums and expand poverty, please tell me about the resounding success the govt has had in cleaning up slums.

They will never admit that the robber baron era ever took place in the US

The term "Robber baron" is a clever use of propaganda, there was big business, sure, just as there is now, but Rockefellar (sp) was only able to get the degree of market share he had by keeping prices low. Please, give us some more of the "Robber Barons" who want to achieve market dominance and get rich by providing high quality and low cost health care and education. Please, have them exploit and abuse me, I'm begging you.

or that corporations can be just as bad as governments

How many people have been murdered by govts in the 20th Century and how many by corporations? Thank you, come again!

Mark, I never said that we'd have a utopia by getting the govt out of as much as possible, only that it would be better and more just than having the govt involved in it. At the end of the day you pay your money and you take your chances, I'll take my chances in the free market where I have the option of choice any day over a govt monopoly.

Tax money taken by the govt does not disappear, that would cause a deflationary effect, it's spent in inefficient and often harmful ways. Do the Swedes have a high standard of living because of or in spite of their high taxes and big govt?

BigG

September 20, 2003, 05:35 PM

it would be better and more just... Nobody wants real justice, er that would be too just. Seriously, if we paid for every little boo boo to truly blind justice, we would all be SOL - a grease spot. :uhoh:

Glock Glockler

September 20, 2003, 06:07 PM

I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Tamara

September 20, 2003, 06:18 PM

Congress is authorized to pass laws for the "general welfare",

Find me the phrase "general welfare" in Art. I, Sec. 8.

It's in the preamble; the "This is why we're forming a government" section of the Constitution. Then, the Constitution specifically enumerates what this government is allowed to do to promote same. "General welfare" ain't in there anywhere.

cordex

September 20, 2003, 07:49 PM

It's in the preamble; the "This is why we're forming a government" section of the Constitution. Then, the Constitution specifically enumerates what this government is allowed to do to promote same. "General welfare" ain't in there anywhere.
To illustrate.
The preamble to Section 8 says:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
You all see that it says "provide for the common defense", right?
If that was a blanket approval of all actions providing "for the common defense", why then do they go on to list:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Hmmm.

Cactus

September 21, 2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Tamara:
Find me the phrase "general welfare" in Art. I, Sec. 8.

Originally posted by Tamara:
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;(emphasis added)

Do you even bother to read what you write?:confused:

Originally posted by Tamara:
It's in the preamble; the "This is why we're forming a government" section of the Constitution. Then, the Constitution specifically enumerates what this government is allowed to do to promote same.

Originally posted by Tamara:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.(emphasis added)

Once again you don't even read your own posts! Notice that it does NOT say "make laws for carrying out only the above enumerated powers". It is very general and intentionally NON- specific.

By your interpretation, all federal property would be a free crime zone. Murder, rape, robbery, arson or ANY crime other than treason would be perfectly legal as they are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Originally posted by Tamara:
I'd be interested to hear which scholars support the very interesting view of the Constitution you just provided, as it is directly counter to anything and everything I've ever read.

Maybe you should read something written by someone other than Libertarian "scholars". Every Supreme Court since at least the Civil War has given broad authority to the Congress to write laws based on Congress' interpretation of the term "general welfare".

Liberals claim that all other parts of the Constitution are to be interpreted broadly, while the Second Amendment is to be interpreted narrowly. You argue the EXACT opposite! You are no less inconsistant than the left.