Libertarians Read, Right? Then Read This

24

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    What powers does the Constitution grant the federal government, in your opinion?

    The power to enact laws to which everyone is subject, the power to tax, the power to incur debt, the power to enter into foreign treaties as an indivisible agent, the power to make war and to defend American land. My opinion of the subject doesn't really matter -- the text is certainly widely available.
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The power to enact laws to which everyone is subject, the power to tax, the power to incur debt, the power to enter into foreign treaties as an indivisible agent, the power to make war and to defend American land. My opinion of the subject doesn't really matter -- the text is certainly widely available.

    I think the libertarian philosophies on such matters certainly begged the question. How could one claim what you mentioned above 'unconstitutional', if the constitution grants the feds power in such matters?
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    I think the libertarian philosophies on such matters certainly begged the question. How could one claim what you mentioned above 'unconstitutional', if the constitution grants the feds power in such matters?

    Any political philosophy that includes adherence to a Constitution begs that question. Certainly the federal government has vastly expanded its power in the last 100 years and much of that expansion has absolutely no constitutional basis unless one effectively believes that there is no constitutional limit to federal power. The latter position is certainly arguable, though that argument must be logically consistent. I've never seen one that is.
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Any political philosophy that includes adherence to a Constitution begs that question. Certainly the federal government has vastly expanded its power in the last 100 years and much of that expansion has absolutely no constitutional basis unless one effectively believes that there is no constitutional limit to federal power. The latter position is certainly arguable, though that argument must be logically consistent. I've never seen one that is.

    Haven't the vast majority of federal government expansions been contested before the Supreme Court as unconstitutional? Sometimes the Supreme Court has agreed they are unconstitutional, sometimes not. I understand if you disagree with the rulings, but what other kind of system would be better that would produce the results you desire? A congress that just passes laws on a whim without the interference of that pesky Supreme Court? ;)
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    How so?

    i believe in modern day socialism and i don't want everyone to be the same
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    agreed. Europe does a fine job of it in many areas. They also pay a great deal for it. I love what they have done with public transit and conditions in many cases. While they might lean towards socialism at the same time, a lot of what they do is capitalist it's a blend of ideas but it's pretty much like that in any 1st world country at this point. No one political system is completely dominating. The fact remains that total unchecked government control or total unchecked corporate control of the economy are generally bad for most of the citizenry and it has been proven over the ages.

    I'm not against government and or government programs that help people. I'm for efficiency and as much liberty and freedom as is socially and economically possible.

    absolutely ...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    Haven't the vast majority of federal government expansions been contested before the Supreme Court as unconstitutional? Sometimes the Supreme Court has agreed they are unconstitutional, sometimes not. I understand if you disagree with the rulings, but what other kind of system would be better that would produce the results you desire? A congress that just passes laws on a whim without the interference of that pesky Supreme Court? ;)

    I'm not criticizing the judicial review process. That's both warranted and wise. What I would criticize, however, is the subjective position the court is put in. Courts function best with objective measures, and too often Congress expands the federal government without Constitutional amendment, thereby putting the Courts in a much more difficult position to determine the Constitutionality of the expansion. It's cowardly and often times done deliberately because they know the amendment would never pass if it needed to face the full amendment process. Furthermore, over time, this establishes contradictory interpretations of the same statutes. Effectively, the Supreme Court is put in the position of actually making the laws, as opposed to simply interpreting them.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    i believe in modern day socialism and i don't want everyone to be the same

    Ok...what is "modern day socialism"?
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I'm not criticizing the judicial review process. That's both warranted and wise. What I would criticize, however, is the subjective position the court is put in. Courts function best with objective measures, and too often Congress expands the federal government without Constitutional amendment, thereby putting the Courts in a much more difficult position to determine the Constitutionality of the expansion. It's cowardly and often times done deliberately because they know the amendment would never pass if it needed to face the full amendment process. Furthermore, over time, this establishes contradictory interpretations of the same statutes. Effectively, the Supreme Court is put in the position of actually making the laws, as opposed to simply interpreting them.

    This is the very reason we rely on the courts. You see, the constitution is not a specific document. It is meant to describe general principles of governance, not specific laws. I think this is a good thing as specific language would be too rigid in an ever changing social and economic society. Do you feel that we should only change the constitution through the amendment process? Wouldn't that politicize the constitution and take the experts on the law, constitutional or otherwise, out of the equation?
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    This is the very reason we rely on the courts. You see, the constitution is not a specific document. It is meant to describe general principles of governance, not specific laws. I think this is a good thing as specific language would be too rigid in an ever changing social and economic society.

    See, here's where you lose me. This vague "ever changing social and economic society" language is frankly BS. What it practically means is "ever changing selective justifications". Society most certainly changes, but it doesn't often change in such fundamental ways as to require constant reinterpretation. Effectively wiping away any objective measures through this logic of "practical realtities" only invites the legislative and judicial chaos we see.

    Fifty years ago, "practical realities" led the Supreme Court to determine that a woman has a Constitutionally protected right to private medical decisions. Ironically, many of the same people who will adamately defend that right will then turn around and lament the "practical realities" of today's society and its need for a government run healthcare system in which privacy of one's medical decisions and history would be impossible. Do you see the hypocrisy and doublespeak I'm getting at here? If you want legal abortions via rights protected at the federal level, that's cool. Amend the constitution. If you then want free healthcare provided by the federal government, that's cool too. Amend the constitution. But don't pick and choose statutes that support you, ignore statutes that don't, or ignore the entire document altogether in just some cases. It's dishonest.

    I'm perfectly ok with those who demand a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Furthermore, I'm also perfectly ok with those who advocate ignoring the Constitution. But I have no respect for people who selectively pick and choose whichever path happens to justify whatever they really want at a given place and time.

    If you believe the Constitution defines the structure of our state and if you believe Congress and the Supreme Court should be servants of the Constitution, then use it where you can and amend it where you and others want. It's not complicated.
    Do you feel that we should only change the constitution through the amendment process?

    That's the only way to change the constitution, per the constitution (short of violent revolt, per the Declaration of Independence).
    Wouldn't that politicize the constitution and take the experts on the law, constitutional or otherwise, out of the equation?

    No more than they already are today.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Ok...what is "modern day socialism"?

    a system that accepts a basic standard of living that all should be privy to, one that believes that resources are consumed in a sustainable way, where the interests of the few do not supercede the interests of the many ...

    it is not far from what we have now - except the corportacracy that engulfs our culture now is turned upside down ...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    a system that accepts a basic standard of living that all should be privy to, one that believes that resources are consumed in a sustainable way

    What "basic standard of living" is that? What do you mean by "sustainable"? And what happens when the methods to achieve that "sustainability" prevent "all" from achieving the "basic standard of living that all should be privy to"?
    where the interests of the few do not supercede the interests of the many ...

    This directly contradicts the above. If everyone deserves a "basic standard of living", that means the interests of just one person below that standard of living would supercede the interests of everyone else.

    Or did you just mean to say "where the interests of those I agree with supercedes the interests of those I do not"
    it is not far from what we have now - except the corportacracy that engulfs our culture now is turned upside down ...

    It certainly doesn't sound far from what we have now.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What "basic standard of living" is that? What do you mean by "sustainable"? And what happens when the methods to achieve that "sustainability" prevent "all" from achieving the "basic standard of living that all should be privy to"?

    clean water, affordable housing/transportation, access to health care, education, etc ...
    farfromglorified wrote:
    This directly contradicts the above. If everyone deserves a "basic standard of living", that means the interests of just one person below that standard of living would supercede the interests of everyone else.

    Or did you just mean to say "where the interests of those I agree with supercedes the interests of those I do not"

    well - that is always going to be the pinch no matter what system in place you put forth - not everyone is going to agree with it ... in any case - i don't see the contradiction ...
    farfromglorified wrote:
    It certainly doesn't sound far from what we have now.

    on the surface - but the reality is we are far from it ...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    clean water

    How much of it?
    affordable housing/transportation

    What does "affordable" mean? Affordable to someone in society, affordable to many in society, or affordable to everyone in society? What qualifies as "housing"? What "transportation" am I entitled to and what are its limits?
    access to health care

    What happens when 500 people need heart transplants tomorrow and you only have enough heart surgeons to perform 200?
    education

    How much education? On what topics?
    etc...

    "Etc"??? What does that mean?
    well - that is always going to be the pinch no matter what system in place you put forth - not everyone is going to agree with it ... in any case - i don't see the contradiction ...

    You don't see the contradiction between saying that "the interests of the many will not supersede the interests of the few" and also saying that "all will have access to a basic standard of living"?

    Given your limited definition above of "basic standard", let's say that I need a heart transplant. Your state structure demands that I receive it, regardless of what it takes. Let's say you don't have enough medical personel to give me that heart transplant. The only way to get enough is to sell enough clean water to another country such that everyone falls below the basic standard you've defined here. If you sell that water, you'll have a situation where my interest supercede everyone else's interest. If you don't sell that water, you'll have a situation wherein my basic rights have been violated. So, do you see the contradiction now?
    on the surface - but the reality is we are far from it ...

    It's exactly where we are now. The people who define "basic standard" and "sustainability" are simply not you.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    How much of it?



    What does "affordable" mean? Affordable to someone in society, affordable to many in society, or affordable to everyone in society? What qualifies as "housing"? What "transportation" am I entitled to and what are its limits?



    What happens when 500 people need heart transplants tomorrow and you only have enough heart surgeons to perform 200?



    How much education? On what topics?



    "Etc"??? What does that mean?



    You don't see the contradiction between saying that "the interests of the many will not supersede the interests of the few" and also saying that "all will have access to a basic standard of living"?

    Given your limited definition above of "basic standard", let's say that I need a heart transplant. Your state structure demands that I receive it, regardless of what it takes. Let's say you don't have enough medical personel to give me that heart transplant. The only way to get enough is to sell enough clean water to another country such that everyone falls below the basic standard you've defined here. If you sell that water, you'll have a situation where my interest supercede everyone else's interest. If you don't sell that water, you'll have a situation wherein my basic rights have been violated. So, do you see the contradiction now?



    It's exactly where we are now. The people who define "basic standard" and "sustainability" are simply not you.

    do you see your example being anywhere reasonable?? ... right now - heart transplants are more concerned with the amount of suitable donors ... where do you envision your scenario being remotely plausible?

    the contradiction only exists when you manipulate it to - the reality is that as a basic concept - it is not very contradictory unless the majority don't believe in the things i mentioned in which case you would be right ...

    as for who's defining that "standard" and "sustainability" - yes, that isn't me right now - nor is it the people ... that's the problem ... and in no way are we even remotely close to being sustainable right now ...

    as for your earlier questions - they can't be answered until there is an understanding of what are the conditions by which we live ...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    do you see your example being anywhere reasonable?? ...

    Absolutely. It's what happens in every socialistic society -- the list of rights grows as production shrinks. I realize we're talking about "modern socialism" here, so I thought maybe you had figured out a way to fix that.
    right now - heart transplants are more concerned with the amount of suitable donors ... where do you envision your scenario being remotely plausible?

    It's completely plausible. Many states currently suffer from severe shortages of heart surgeons. Current projections show that the United States will suffer from a shortage of 5,000 heart surgeons within the next decade. At many points in history and in many places, the number of health care providers has been far outstripped by the demand.
    the contradiction only exists when you manipulate it to - the reality is that as a basic concept - it is not very contradictory unless the majority don't believe in the things i mentioned in which case you would be right ...

    What you're not even thinking of is that simply agreeing on or believing in the things that comprise the "basic standard of living" does not magically make them exist, nor does it make them non-contradictory. You've gauranteed everyone transportation. Does that mean cars? Who's going to make them? How does that fit in with your "sustainability"?
    as for who's defining that "standard" and "sustainability" - yes, that isn't me right now - nor is it the people ... that's the problem ... and in no way are we even remotely close to being sustainable right now ...

    Nor are you helping matters by promising everyone a house. The basic challenges to sustainability are consumption levels and appropriate technology. You're going to dramatically increase consumption levels while removing incentives to develop new technologies.

    There's nothing "sustainable" about arbitrary guarantees.
    as for your earlier questions - they can't be answered until there is an understanding of what are the conditions by which we live ...

    I have no idea what this means. Can you please expand?
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Absolutely. It's what happens in every socialistic society -- the list of rights grows as production shrinks. I realize we're talking about "modern socialism" here, so I thought maybe you had figured out a way to fix that.



    It's completely plausible. Many states currently suffer from severe shortages of heart surgeons. Current projections show that the United States will suffer from a shortage of 5,000 heart surgeons within the next decade. At many points in history and in many places, the number of health care providers has been far outstripped by the demand.



    What you're not even thinking of is that simply agreeing on or believing in the things that comprise the "basic standard of living" does not magically make them exist, nor does it make them non-contradictory. You've gauranteed everyone transportation. Does that mean cars? Who's going to make them? How does that fit in with your "sustainability"?



    Nor are you helping matters by promising everyone a house. The basic challenges to sustainability are consumption levels and appropriate technology. You're going to dramatically increase consumption levels while removing incentives to develop new technologies.

    There's nothing "sustainable" about arbitrary guarantees.



    I have no idea what this means. Can you please expand?

    i don't know of any shortages here ... nor any other country that has public health care ... also, i don't see how you stifle incentives for new technology - part of access to health care is to also investing in prevention through various programs ...

    i said affordable housing/transportation ... that doesn't mean giving everyone a house and car ... it means access to public transportation or a home that is affordable ...

    yes ... consumption levels do indeed need to drop - through collective planning - consumption can be dropped below what it is now ... also, we would need to have a shift in terms of our understanding of the indicators by which we judge our progress ... we can't operate under a model that seeks to only promote economic growth without consequence ...

    as for the last bit - i can't answer how much water because it would be dependent on what is available, nor tell you what affordable is unless we know what people are earning, etc ...
  • sweetpotato
    sweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    "You can't be a good president in the 21st century when your chief concerns are the sovereignty of the American taxpayer and his right to bear arms. It’s too insular. Isolationism is no longer an option, and hasn't been for years. The world is too small and you can thank, or blame, technology for that reality. The stakes are far too high, as we've learned since Sept. 11, 2001, to act like we can do anything we damned well please anytime we damned well feel like it."

    Like it or not, this is the 21st century, folks. We are part of an increasingly interdependent global community. Time to take your heads out of the sand.

    Or out of your asses, wherever they may be at the present moment.
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    sweetpotato wrote:
    "You can't be a good president in the 21st century when your chief concerns are the sovereignty of the American taxpayer and his right to bear arms. It’s too insular. Isolationism is no longer an option, and hasn't been for years. The world is too small and you can thank, or blame, technology for that reality. The stakes are far too high, as we've learned since Sept. 11, 2001, to act like we can do anything we damned well please anytime we damned well feel like it."

    Like it or not, this is the 21st century, folks. We are part of an increasingly interdependent global community. Time to take your heads out of the sand.

    Or out of your asses, wherever they may be at the present moment.


    The irony of this is Libertarians might be the only ones out there who aren't isolationist when it comes to a global economy.

    Everyone else wants tarriffs and price supports to keep thier jobs in thier respective countries.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • sweetpotato
    sweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    Libertarians might be the only ones out there who aren't isolationist when it comes to a global economy.

    Everyone else wants tarriffs and price supports to keep thier jobs in thier respective countries.

    when it comes to making money, i have no doubt that they're all for globalizing. i mean, these ARE republicans we're talking about, right?

    it's their social and foreign policy that seem to be outdated and insular.
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7

Categories