Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 6/29/2001 9:51:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/30/2001 4:48:51 PM EST by sfoo]
Ok, so after reading the GWB is not our friend page, and reading on the libertarian party's page, I'm not convinced I'm ready for the Libertarian utopia prophecized. Most people I hear talking about Utopias generally prescribe some form of Kool-Aid to their followers eventually in any case [:)]. (that is a joke) First, things I like. - less taxes. This is certainly possible in what they would like to see happen. - more liberty all around. Cool, I can get a BAR then. And I can shoot it locally. - Unlimited cryptography. On to the rest.... I kind of like driving, although traffic sucks ass during rush hour. Who's going to take care of the roads nationwide? A bunch of different corporations? Sure. Seen the joke about if Microsoft made cars? What's to stop Roads, inc from deciding that maintenance on a particular interstate is too expensive. They close that particular road since it's so costly, and force you to drive 10 miles out of your way on the new megahighway instead, as that makes them more money. Health Care. The web page says abolish the FDA, since it serves no recognizable protection. With no FDA, who's first in line to try the new wonder happy pill? Oh, btw, it's related to stricnine. But it made our test subject happy for twenty minutes before he croaked. Education. Do you really want to hand control of the schools over to the parents, in particular the ones who participate in such stuff...soccer moms? Also, what kind of curriculums are their going to be? Will they differ state to state, city to city? Will Joe Bob from Cali might have half the math and reading skills of Job Bob from Texas? After all, TX would actually require more of their grads. Enviornment and Pollution. Union Carbide anyone? Gosh, I'm now in the mood to let Tosco, Shell, Chevron, Intel, Exxon, Dow, and all those other folks do as they please on their own land. Yep, I'm sure they'll be real good stewards of the land they own. Oh, but since BLM is going to be going away, we'll just dump all that dangerous crap in the cheapest location we can buy. Probably in Nevada or Alaska. Nuclear waste generated by Reliant and Duke? Oh, no biggie. Just dump it in this hole right here. Who cares? The government isn't coming after us now, since the EPA is gone also! The privatizing of Police and prisons worries me a little...any one ever see RoboCop? Sure the movie was fiction. But how would it not happen in a libertarian enviornment? MegaStupid Corp (MSC) wants to pay its workers less. They decide to strike. what then? How about when your car is stolen. You file a report, and it's never looked at again, because MSC decided that stolen cars are an too expensive a duty for its police workers to do. Finally, what about orphans? Mental Health patients with no means of support? Who takes care of them? I am NOT against Libertarians. I voted their way for the last election. (ca...ya think bush was going to win my state?) I have significant doubts that they will ever be taken seriously enough by most folks to ever win a national election. They are out there to most people, even right wing republicans. Such a shift in paradigm is far too foreign to many folks. I've sat down and thought about it for a while, though, and I've found it wanting in some areas. Convince me (and others) that there is an answer. Please. I really want a BAR. Edited to please the picky spelling gods.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 9:58:28 PM EST
sfoo- I was in the Libertarian club in college and have been a small "l" libertarian since high school. Too many questions for me to answer here as it is late and I am tired but will talk to you a lot about it at the shoot next month. One thing though is that the philosophy has always been there is NO UTOPIA. Ones who try to create a utopia always do it through the use of force. Libertarians just believe that the free exchange of goods and services is what is right and just, not that it would create a utopia. The fact that the world works better when people are given freedom to choose is just a benefit. BTW, it is the only party that completely advocates the right to own and carry firearms.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 1:11:41 AM EST
The best thing about being a "Libretarian" is you don't have to spell Libertarian correctly. Just kidding..couldn't resist. No one should convince you to become one. You should convince yourself. When you are finally tired of having all your rights systematically stripped away by BOTH republicans and democrats, maybe then you will look to an alternative. Simply put, the Libertarian philosophy is such: You are free to live your life as you see fit as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. No you can't drink and drive (or smoke doobies and drive) The role of the federal government would be reduced to it's constitutional limits...provide for the national defense...not studying mating habits of monarch butterflies or ketchup consistency. We could debate for hours (or years) but until people realize they are ADDICTED to big government, nothing will happen....admitting you have problem is the first step!
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 2:26:51 AM EST
Well I have been up all night so I will not go into a lot of detail. First of all let the states collect taxes for roads and up keep of schools. If we get rid of the unconstitutional income tax and states have reasonable taxes whatever the states decide the amount should be. Let the states use the money from taxes for roads, schools, etc. Instead of us sending tax money to federal government and letting the federal government deciding how much each state gets back for roads for example. The federal government also holds states funds hostage if the states don't abide by certain wishes they impose. Such as one state out west that does not have a speed limit. The federal government denies them money to fix roads because of this. The federal government was not intended to pass all these laws that they just keep passing laws and taking power of the states to govern themselves. You should read The Great Libertarian Offer by Harry Brown. Here is a little taste from the book. "The Constitution lists the powers and functions delegated to the federal government. Among them are national defense and a federal judiciary system. The 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution make it clear that the federal government has no business in any matter not authorized in the Constitution itself. IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The Founding Fathers knew that such things as roads, education, commerce, agriculture, health care, law enforcement, and charity would be more efficient, less expensive, and less intrusive of your liberty if handled by the states or by the people on their own. They also knew that government will always be under pressure to grow and acquire ever more power. So the Constitution drew a practical, clear-cut boundary beyond which the federal government was not allowed to go." All these BS laws since mainly the early part of the last century are made by power hungry politicians scratching the backs of certain groups, organizations, corporations, people, themselves, etc. Oh, but you always hear "its for the good of the people". The politicians (Democrats and our shady friends the Republicans) are professionals and will do what it takes to get reelected while selling our freedom and raising our taxes in the process. I have drawn my line in the sand and will never vote Republican again. If there is not a Libertarian on the ballot I will vote Constitution Party. If there is neither I will write my own name in. I will no longer live with the gradual downhill slide the Republicans are making us ride every time we vote for them. The Republicans are weak. There platform is weak and they have to many different Republicans in the Republican Party. Elect a Libertarian and you will see someone who has a strict platform to abide by and you will not need to keep reelecting the same Libertarian to office because they will all follow the Constitution, the way it should be. No Slack!
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 3:45:53 AM EST
The Libertarians divided the Conservatives and gave enough senate seats to the Democrats, that they got the majority and we lost control of the Colorado State Senate. I really believe the Democrats fund the Libertarian Party. The Republicans should sponser the Green Party to pay them back.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 3:57:58 AM EST
Though libertarians have just as much credibility as any other political party, don't be fooled by any claims that they "support the constitution." Libertarians encourage a form of constitutional interpretation which would allow judges to unilaterally change the constitution to support their political philosophy (not that other parties might do so also). Furthermore their particular constitutional interpretations do not correspond with the constitution's original intent. From the lp webpage: "We oppose...laws concerning...[o]bscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression." There is no "freedom of expression" in the constitution. It's a liberal invention to give protection to porn etc which the founding fathers clearly did not intend the 1st amendment to protect. (The first amendment was designed to protect political speech). "The individual's right to privacy...should not be infringed by the government." There is no right to privacy in the constitution, it is an invention of liberal courts designed to protect perverts and abortion. Yes yes, it may be a good policy choice, but it ain't part of the original intent of the constitution. "we advocate a strict separation of church and State." So called "strict separation of church and state" is a far more harsh standard than that set forth in the constitution, and disrupts the role in government which the founding fathers wanted religion to have. Any philosophy of constitutional interpretation that allows an unelected and unaccountable justice to willy-nilly change the constitution to suit the flavor of the day is dangerous: rights can be read out as quickly as they are read in. Liberals and libertarians embrace this philosophy which allows them to pervert the constitution to conform to their own political views. Liberals realize that this philosophy could used to just as easily remove rights from the constitution. Libertarians, so caught up in their own rhetoric, do not. Also understand that libertarians do not oppose abortion. Their rather odd response is to simply say, since it's so controversial, government should not regulate it (ie, government should't make it illegal).
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 5:07:15 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 5:10:11 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 5:12:03 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 5:16:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 5:31:21 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 11:25:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/30/2001 11:41:39 AM EST by MatthewDaugherty]
Avtomat, I believe you are twisting what the Libertarians say, leaving out material, and inserting material as seen fit. This is straight from the www.lp.org/issues/ page on issues and politicians. "AGAINST CENSORSHIP" "The Libertarian Party is the only political party in the United States with an explicit stand against censorship of computer communications in its platform. The Libertarian Party also opposes restriction on the development and use cryptography. As a political party, the LP is the only anticensorhip organization that gives you a chance to vote for freedom of speech on Election Day-by voting for Libertarian candidates for public office." We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of individuals to dissent from government itself... We oppose any abridgement(abridgement means to reduce the length or extent of) of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning: Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women: ... Electronic bullentin boards, communications networks, and other interactive electronic media as we hold them to be the functional equivalent of speaking halls and printing presses in the age of electronic communications, and as such deserving of full freedom; Electronic newspapers, electronic "Yellow Pages", and other new information media, as these deserve full freedom. ..." Avtomat, I believe you are not comprehending what you are reading. If you can post a legitimate website of the Libertarian Party with this claim on freedom of speech I will a apologize. If not I believe you should apologize. Although I rarely use profanity and I'm against pornography, but I believe we must not let the government raise our kids. Once the government starts limiting freedoms where will it end. No Slack!
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 1:00:58 PM EST
Even if the libertarians advocate a literal interpretation of the constitution, this does not necessarily correspond to a correct interpretation to its original intent. In fact, taking the 1st amendment's speech clause literally, one must conclude the government can regulate no speech, including child pornography, libel, slander, obscenity, campaign contributions, etc. Insofar as the 4th amendment is concerned, it restricts searches and seizures (affirmative acts), and does not provide a general prohibition on the "infringement" of "privacy." [url]http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/freereli.html[/url] "In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State." Not only is it on the website, it's part of the party's PLATFORM.
I view it as though the gov't can not declare a national religion, nothing from stopping religion from being in politics.
View Quote
The first amendment only prohibits the "establishment" of a religion, while at the same time protecting the free exercise of religion. This is not a "strict seperation of church and state." Your opinion apparently contradicts that of the libertarian party. As far as abortion, the current status of the abortion "right" forbids government regulation (read: prohibition) of abortion by states. This is exactly what the libertarian platform calls for. The libertarian position preserves the status quo. Matt Daugherty: I dont quite understand what you are saying, or what I'm "twisting" about the libertarian position on freedom of speech. Your quote clearly states the libertarian position that regulation of obscenity, pornography, etc, violates a "freedom of expression." I assert such a "freedom" is inconsistent with the original intent of the founding fathers.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 3:05:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/30/2001 3:02:36 PM EST by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 3:27:38 PM EST
Originally Posted By SS109: The Libertarians divided the Conservatives and gave enough senate seats to the Democrats, that they got the majority and we lost control of the Colorado State Senate. I really believe the Democrats fund the Libertarian Party. The Republicans should sponser the Green Party to pay them back.
View Quote
......WTF? maybe the Republicans secretly fund the Green party. maybe the Democrats funded the Reform party. truth is the Republicans divided the "conservatives". me, im not a "conservative" i am a true liberal. if i was a "conservative" i'd be maintaining the status quo. that of "post-modern liberal" government. Republicans dont even support a republican form of government. i the "true liberal" do support a constitutional republic. stupid word play. I and others like me fund the libertoon party. dont like us, i dont care, dont join. this is not a democracy and i hope the libertarian party never sells out in order to get votes.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 3:37:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/30/2001 3:47:16 PM EST by MatthewDaugherty]
Avtomat, as much as I'm opposed personally to using profanity and pornography I believe what people do in their own homes is their own business. If you speak obscenities is that not a form of speech. If you have pornographic pictures is that not a form of the press it is something that is printed just a different type of printing which was not technologically possible back then. If you are speaking is this not a form of expressing oneself. The American Heritage Dictionary's definition for expression. expression n. 1. Communication of an idea, emotion, etc., especially by words. 2. A symbol: sign or indication. 3. A manner of expressing, esp. in speaking or performing. The fourth Amendment does give us a right to privacy. What we do on our own private property is of no concern of the governments as long as we are not murdering someone or abusing someone. If the government can not search or seize our property without just cause then we are guaranteed a right to privacy. Just cause would be something like you were witnessed to a robbery and they want to search your home for the weapon and you. IF the government can neither create a national religion or prohibit a religion from practicing then that would constitute a separation of church and state. If you want to pray in schools or congress than it is okay with me. Just as you can not force someone not to pray in public areas, you can not force someone to pray. As for abortion I don't agree with it unless the mother's life is endangered. I do believe it is murder, but that is for the courts and congress to pass the law against abortion. Using it as birth control, lack of sexual restraint, immaturaty, and saying "oh I'm not ready to be a parent" is wrong. Well you should have thought about that before you pulled your drawers down. Although I do not agree with the Libertarians Party on Abortion except that our taxes should not go towards state runned abortion clinics. I don't support murder. I agree with most of their other ideals and positions. I believe we must get the Federal government out of our lives and reduce spending. Avtomat when I said you were twisting information I feel you are twisting the Libertarians reasons for their stance. They may not want to make obscenities and pornography illegal, but thats because they want the government out of our private lives. I'm sure they are not advocating public display of obscenities and pornography in the streets. They understand that once you start to limit personal freedoms you open the door to more and more restrictions of our privacy and what we can do and can't do. I do believe morally we have some common ground Avtomat, but I believe we can not legislate morality as long as it does not directly put someone in danger. As for narcotics I'm against them personally, but if you want to poison your body in your own home than so be it. If you are on public property selling drugs than I'm for laws against it.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 4:30:16 PM EST
just because the Constitution does not protect a right does not mean that it is not a basic human right
View Quote
I'm sorry, but this is irrelevant. I'm speaking about what the constitution says, not about what rights exist independant of the constitution. Sure, there could be rights that exist independant of the constitution, but since I'm talking about the judicial philosophy in interpreting the constitution, such is really not relevant.
The 4th implies a right to privacy, and even if you feel it doesn't see my above about rights not in the constitution
View Quote
Implied? I'm sure we could imply lots of things in the constitution. And that's my point. A philosophy of constitutional interpretation which would allow us to change the consitution right and left to suit our political ideology is dangerous: if you put things into the constitution that don't exist (are not part of the original intent), you can easily take out rights that do exist. Today a judge decides the constitution forbids any law that regulates conduct that doesnt harm others, tomorrow that judge finds there is no RKBA in the constitution.
Show me evidence that the founding fathers wanted religion involved and I can show just as much that they did not
View Quote
Show me where the constitution says "strict seperation between church and state" and I'll show you where it says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." But if this isn't enough, howabout the fact that, since the beginning of this country, up until the middle of the 20th century, kids could indeed pray in public school, schoolmasters could lead them, they could study the bible, city governments could set up manger schenes, etc etc etc. Why is it, than in the last 50 years, the SCOTUS suddenly found that there was a strict seperation between church and state, even though no such seperation existed for well over 100 years?
libertarians feel this way is that many religious people and groups want to use government to enforce tier religious views upon others. Your mention of porn, perverts, abortion, and the separation of church and state several times here seems to suggest that you may fall into that category
View Quote
Veiled personal attacks do not support your arguments. My beliefs are quite irrelevant as to the original intent of the constitution. Your political beliefs as to the proper role of government is equally irrelevant.
I have no idea where that idea came from
View Quote
It's called the "non-interpretive" or "living constitution" approach to constitutional interpretation. Such holds that if society wants it, the constitution should be changed to allow/disallow it. One day people wanted abortion, so the SCOTUS found there was a right to abortion. Never mind its not in the constitution, the people wanted it, and so they found it in the constitution. They also found property rights in welfare, the non-existence of federalism, etc. [b]It's quite ironic libertarians want a return of the federalism found in the constiution, and yet embrace the philosophy of constitutional interpretation which led to its demise.[/b]
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 4:31:01 PM EST
Avtomat, as much as I'm opposed personally to using profanity and pornography I believe what people do in their own homes is their own business
View Quote
Unfortunatly, "letting people do in their own homes" what they want is not the standard set forth in the constitution. Furthermore, a dictionary definition of expression is irrelevant, I'm not discussing what expression means, I'm saying its not part of the original intent of the constitution.
The fourth Amendment does give us a right to privacy. What we do on our own private property is of no concern of the governments as long as we are not murdering someone or abusing someone.
View Quote
The 4th amendment does not say "you can do whatever you want on your property as long as you aren't abusing anyone." It says you are protected from the affirmative acts of searches and seizures (unless there is a warrant). Again, I'm not discussing whether or not privacy, expression, etc, is a good thing. I'm simply pointing out that libertarians must embrace a particular form of interpretational philosophy that is dangerous.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 4:48:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/30/2001 4:48:09 PM EST by sfoo]
Sweep/others (re: education) You quote the lp.org page one education that made me question their views in the first place. I agree that Dept. of Ed. is pretty worthless. I forsee that a future in their plans would allow for so many choices that anyone could open a school and cater to a select clientele, passing out diplomas to anyone willing to give them money/vouchers/whatever. Think about it. As much as it's not a wrong-headed idea, I'm sure the instant this sort of thing occured, there would be schools for every ethnicity, and every language opened up. Alright, that's fine and good, but what happens to those kids when they are thrust into the real world? Oops, we don't know that cuz we weren't taught that in school. Parents may or may not care enough to evaluate the 34 choices they'll have in schools and just pick one that sounds good. I don't mean to sound like I know better, but there are many folks who do use schools as day care for their children and could give a rat's behind as to what they actually learn. And certainly this is their choice. I'd just like to know that each school is going to teach their kids a certain base level of stuff. However, that would require the government to intrude again, which the libs don't want to do. I don't think there is a clear answer, but I want to know that someone is willing to say, yes, we will have to have some limited for of governmental oversight for a great number of things. But here's how we will limit the oversight to JUST these few things. (re: pollution/enviornment) I understand that the government is currently the #1 polluter. But crime is limited because of the threat of being caught. Just like a number of companies play the line between unethical and illegal. The EPA, etc., are the threat that keeps them inline. Without someone looking over their shoulders, do you honestly think that many companies are going to say, sure! we're willing to spend an extra $25 million or so to ensure that our factories aren't dumping sulfur gas into the local air. Again, without someone looking over their shoulders, many of the firms are going to be a lot more free with polluting as they please, instead of improving their enviornmental record. And no one's answered my question about orphans and folks without means to support themselves in need of medical attention.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 4:56:41 PM EST
Btw, thanks for the reasoned and interesting discussion so far. This is the way to convince someone, not just shoving facts and figures in their face saying "See???? I'm so right because this proves it!" Ratters/Sweep: "Libertarian Utopia" was actually a phrase used on one of their web pages, which I found humorous.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 5:02:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 5:03:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/30/2001 5:03:11 PM EST by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 5:20:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By Garand Shooter: stupid character limit
View Quote
[:)]
Can the SCOTUS actually only go by what is expressly written and still make rulings in the cases before them? "The Constitution says nothing about driving, so we cannot rule on it?". "The constitution says nothing about a right to crytography, so you must not have any right to it"..... is that what you are talking about?
View Quote
I'll bite here. No is the simple answer, they can't go only by what's written. There is nothing about cryptography, since it's a form of speech. Just because what I say is not understood by you doesn't mean it can be limited by you. I think that the interpretation has to be tied to where it fits into the constitution, and from there, one should derive how it will be interpreted. Hence, crypto, although not specifically mentioned, falls clearly under free speech (1st amendment). Driving is not so clear, though, since it's rarely a form of expression, it's not usually a form of a domecile, and thus a little more difficult to characterize constitutionally. The actual vehicle falls under property. The use of said vehicle beyond the lines of your property is where the trouble in interpretation lies. Is your property (as in vehicle) sacrosanct away from your property (as in land)? If so, what is the limit? Unreasonable search and seizure would be applicable, since the govt. can't just say, we don't like the color of your car, so we're going to take it. But if you are doing something that is endangering others and repeatedly do so, is seizure a valid option at some point? I'm rambling away, but No, SCOTUS is not limited to just what's written. They are (in my interpretation) limited to applying what is written to cases that call the constitution in play. Speed limits might not be a viable case, but a law requiring seizure in cases of excessive speed might be a good case. JMHO.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 6:35:09 PM EST
Does the constitution forbid it? Are you saying all things not directly allowed in the constitution should be dissallowed
View Quote
Of course there is an amount of leeway in interpreting the constitution. And our ultimate guide for what each provision means is the original intent of its authors. Of course, there is a huge difference between determining what they meant, and inventing completely new "rights". If the constitution is so flexible that wholly new rights could be created, or portions are stretched far beyond their obvious scope, it is reasonable to conclude that portions could become more narrow, or even irrelevant (like, say, the 2nd amendment)! But if you hold the constitution inviolate, and new "rights" aren't created, and old rights aren't removed, I submit to you that this is the superior method of constitutional interpretation. Example: Does the constitution protect a right to abortion? A majority of the SCOTUS says it does. Of course, no conceivable stretch of the founding fathers intent could produce this result. So how did they find this "right" in the constitution? The "living constitution" form of constitutional interpretation says that we shouldn't just look at original intent, we should instead look to the changing times and the wants and desires of society (ie, they just inserted their own political agenda). An interpretivist, however, would just look to the original intent. If such did not show a intent to protect abortion (or similar type restrictions, abortion of course really didn't exist), the constitution didnt protect it (if it wasn't meant to protect it, then how could we say it did?). Remember, the "living constitution" approach destroyed our federalism. People wanted (or at least the justices, who were unelected and unaccountable) federal laws to protect this or that (civil rights laws, uniform blood alcohol levels, New Deal laws). Since the people wanted it, they ignored the constitution and its original intent. This is what will have to occur if the libertarians would have their agenda (though lots of thier views have already been incorporated). To sum up, I'll just paraphrase an earlier line: Any philosophy of constitutional interpretation that allows an unelected and unaccountable justice to willy-nilly change the constitution to suit the flavor of the day (libertarian philosophy) is dangerous: rights can be read out as quickly as they are read in. Liberals and libertarians embrace this philosophy which allows them to change the constitution to conform to their own political views. Liberals realize that this philosophy could be used to just as easily remove rights from the constitution. Libertarians, so caught up in their own rhetoric (freedom! liberty! Republicrats! Communitarians!), do not.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 6:39:49 PM EST
This topic is WAY too heady for me... I'll say only this--- a better world would have "REPUBLITARIANS" in charge. Here's how to order! [url]president@whitehouse.gov [/url] Hope this helps!
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 7:44:01 PM EST
Ok for all of you worried about the libertarian stance on abortion may I suggest reading EVERYTHING at [url]http://www.l4l.org/[/url]. There is a hyperlink to [url]http://www.l4l.org/journal.html[/url] on the left of the page. This is where all the good stuff is. I also had a big problem with the libertarians stance on abortion, til I read the stuff at Libertarians 4 Life. I used to be a dyed in the wool conservative. My parents are conservative, all my friends were. It was almost painful to give it up, but I have had a complete paradaigm shift. I only mention this because I did a LOOOT of reading and research, and a LOT of thinking and realized the libertarian philosophy made perfect sense, but NOT nesesarily at first blush. Libertarianism takes a lot of work. I heartily recommend Mary Ruwart's book: Healing Our World. I even have it in HTML format if you are interested. (offered by her for free a year or so ago.) avtomat: I dont know where you have gathering your information about what Libertarians think/believe, but it is not even close to what I have found in the 2 years I have been studying this philosophy. If what you are saying was what we ACTUALLY believed, I would agree with you, but this is absolutely NOT EVEN CLOSE! And as far as not "interpreting" the constitution. We have no choice since the drafters arent here anymore to explain their intent, we must make our best attempt to interpret their intent from the constitution as well as their other writings. They were smart enough to realize that the future would bring many things they couldnt anticipate, and thus made the wording of the constition somewhat vague so we could apply it to new areas as they arose. In essence they gave us good guidelines, and also set forth some very concrete "thou shalt nots" for the federal government (ie 'thou shalt not infringe the right to keep and bear arms). I could go on, but I must cut it off here, and get some sleep. Fourteen 12 hour days in a row and I need rest. Louis
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 8:18:04 PM EST
Avtomat, Thinking about politics too much in a non-election year makes my head hurt, but you seem to be setting an impossible standard that no party or person could ever meet. How can anybody read anything without doing some sort of interpretation? The Constitution cannot possibly describe every single detail of every single function of government, even a libertarian government. Or spell out every single right that a free person should have. Somebody's got to flesh out the bones of government, and I sure don't see anybody else besides the Libertarian Party that wants to stick any closer to what is believed (by me, at least) to be the original intent of the Constitution. If it's so evil to do even a very literal interpretation of the Constitution, then why even have one? And how could any party or any government function with a straitjacket like you seem to want slipped on?
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 9:02:36 PM EST
If it's so evil to do even a very literal interpretation of the Constitution, then why even have one?
View Quote
If we let every cotton-candy "right" change the constiution to incorporate such, then why even have a constitution? We'll just let the SCOTUS sit as a super legislature, giving the thumbs up or thumbs down on every issue that comes before it, regardless of constitution, since the constitution can be changed at every whim. Of course I'm not saying there is no room for interpretation. I'm merely suggesting that to deviate from the constitution's original intent is to ignore the document and reduce it to a nullity. Why even bother having a constitution if we decide whatever we [i]feel like[/i] is protected? If we don't adhere to the original intent, what standard do we use in determing "new rights"? Shall we take a poll? A survey? Enevitably, a judge will simply substitute his own personal political views. Of course what I'm saying is nothing new, there are plenty of folks who bash the "living constitution" philosophy (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist). Such philosophy is universally accepted by liberals as a means to put their views into law when they know normal folks wouldnt vote for it. But maybe we need examples? I hate to repeat the abortion issue, but its one of the most illustrative examples. How did the court "find" a right to abortion? Answer: They just made it up. Their political views (ie, their internal view of the proper relation between government and the people) held that abortion should be protected. Just like some people think there should be a "strict seperation of church and state," a right to privacy, right to obscenity, etc. So they stick it in there. But they have opened the gate: since its ok to put stuff in (if "society wants it"), it's now ok to take stuff out (because "society wants it"). Today they put in a guarantee for welfare, tomorrow they take out the RKBA. And they are unelected and unaccountable. No matter what bs research one does, it is clear the 2nd was intended to protect an individuals RKBA. But what would a "living constitutionalist" say to this? "Guns are bad, so we'll ignore the 2nd, its outdated, etc." They don't have to protect that right, because they don't have to obey either the text or orginal intent of the constitution. I suggest, that if we come up with some sort of "new" rights, we simply utilize the constitutional mechanism to elevate such to consitutional status: amend the constitutuion.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 2:51:48 PM EST
Here's a cogent commentary on Libertarianism by Charley Reese: [url]http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-oped-reese01070101.column[/url]
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 3:09:50 PM EST
Everyone on this board should vote libertarian. Please go to the polls and vote libertarian in 2004, you'll be glad you did, and so will AL. [smoke]
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 5:41:06 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 7:33:12 PM EST
Troy, Certainly. You and Ratters can beat on me simultaneously. [:P]
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 11:29:53 PM EST
Originally Posted By Avtomat: I hate to repeat the abortion issue, but its one of the most illustrative examples. How did the court "find" a right to abortion? Answer: They just made it up. Their political views (ie, their internal view of the proper relation between government and the people) held that abortion should be protected. Just like some people think there should be a "strict seperation of church and state," a right to privacy, right to obscenity, etc. So they stick it in there. But they have opened the gate: since its ok to put stuff in (if "society wants it"), it's now ok to take stuff out (because "society wants it"). Today they put in a guarantee for welfare, tomorrow they take out the RKBA.
View Quote
I'm too lazy to go check, but it seems to me that either the 9th or 10th Amendment says "The enumeration of certain rights in this here Constitution don't mean people ain't got other rights that we didn't mention." Or words to that effect. So if the Libertarian Party maybe defends more rights than we see listed in the Bill of Rights, that doesn't mean they are somehow packing things into the Constitution that were not there before. Especially when we remember that the Amendment I'm thinking of is PART of the Bill of Rights, and the understanding that there would be a Bill of Rights was one of the conditions upon which the original Constitution was ratified. Abortion has nothing to do with "discovering" new rights. The legalization of abortion was just the court deciding that certain people are NOT people, and therefore have zero rights. By the way, I used to be "pro-choice." I took a pragmatic view, thinking that laws against abortion could not be enforced and that if everyone who wanted an abortion had one, society as a whole would not be harmed. Since joining the Libertarian Party I have thought a lot more about this, and am now "pro-life." I still have concerns about enforcing laws against abortion, but realize now that our rights must come into existence at the same instant we do. It is inconsistent to claim so many rights for ourselves and none for certain others. I also realize my thoughts about "society as a whole" are the same type of collectivist thinking that is used to justify communism and gun control schemes. Individuals have rights for their own benefit, not the benefit of society.
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 2:40:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 9:09:38 AM EST
I'm too lazy to go check, but it seems to me that either the 9th or 10th Amendment says "The enumeration of certain rights in this here Constitution don't mean people ain't got other rights that we didn't mention." Or words to that effect
View Quote
Unfortunately, this is not what the 9th amendment says, or what it means. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The federalists put the 9th in there as a general statement about the B of R itself (not as a general guarantee of all the rights you can think of). They didn't even want to have a bill of rights because they argued the federal government didn't have any powers that could infringe any rights. Thus they feared that the existence of enumerated restrictions would be construed as allowing powers which would infringe other rights, or that it implied the federal government had unrestrained powers over those rights. Keep in mind "rights," in the context of the B of R denotes restrictions on the power of government (negative rights), and not general guarantees to have xyz (affirmative rights). But of course, the Bill of Rights was only meant to apply to the federal government, and the 9th amendment specifically addresses the B of R (notice the term [i]construed[/i]). By no means could it be argued that it applies to state power as well, especially considering the entire B of R didn't apply to state power. Furthermore its use of the word "retained" indicates that it only meant to protect rights currently held by the people at its passage. Since the people had no constitutional protection of rights in the B of R against state power, those rights couldn't be "retained" against state action.
Abortion has nothing to do with "discovering" new rights. The legalization of abortion was just the court deciding that certain people are NOT people, and therefore have zero rights.
View Quote
No, Roe didn't just say fetuses have no rights, if that were true states could still ban abortion. Roe said that women have a constitutional right to have abortions, irrespective of any rights a fetus may have. Such right, as the court said, was found in the "penumbra" of the constitution (look up the word penumbra, if that doesnt denote "discovering" I don’t know what does). Roe v. Wade, though desperately searching for support throughout the constitution and common law, does address the 9th amendment, however. In fact, it was one of the first real instances where the 9th was actually applied (against states), and was used as a basis to support a right to abortion (I don’t recall whether they addressed whether such right of abortion was "retained").
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 9:10:18 AM EST
So if the Libertarian Party maybe defends more rights than we see listed in the Bill of Rights, that doesn't mean they are somehow packing things into the Constitution that were not there before
View Quote
My argument (still unaddressed by any responses in this thread) is that if we allow judge to embrace a policy of constitutional interpretation which holds that document to be open to revision to suit a particular political viewpoint that deviates from the constitution's original intent (adding "rights" or "freedoms" not contained in such), we open the door to the removal of other rights that maybe another judge's political view doesn't think is very "free." Again, Liberals realize this policy could be used to remove rights, but Libertarians, so caught up in rhetoric (republicrats! communitarians! freedom! rights!), do not.
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 7:54:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/5/2001 8:00:53 PM EST by Fuzzbean]
Originally Posted By Avtomat:
(Fuzzbean) I'm too lazy to go check, but it seems to me that either the 9th or 10th Amendment says "The enumeration of certain rights in this here Constitution don't mean people ain't got other rights that we didn't mention." Or words to that effect
View Quote
Unfortunately, this is not what the 9th amendment says, or what it means. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
View Quote
Sure as hell sounds like what it's saying to me.
The federalists put the 9th in there as a general statement about the B of R itself (not as a general guarantee of all the rights you can think of).
View Quote
I personally believe we have exactly as many rights as we are willing to stand up and seize with our own two hands -- provided, of course, we do not intrude on same set of rights rightfully claimable by others. The problem with a lot of so-called "rights" claimed by many folks nowadays (right to work, right to free healthcare, right to abortion, etc.)is that they do involve violating the rights of others.
But of course, the Bill of Rights was only meant to apply to the federal government, and the 9th amendment specifically addresses the B of R (notice the term [i]construed[/i]).
View Quote
Furthermore its use of the word "retained" indicates that it only meant to protect rights currently held by the people at its passage.
View Quote
Such right, as the court said, was found in the "penumbra" of the constitution (look up the word penumbra, if that doesnt denote "discovering" I don’t know what does).
View Quote
I did look up "prenumbra." I agree that the [i]federal[/i] Bill of Rights was only intended to restrict the [i]federal[/i] government; but for a guy arguing against creative interpretation, you seem to be "discovering" a lot of new meanings for words that I can't quite seem to make out.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 9:08:30 AM EST
I personally believe we have exactly as many rights as we are willing to stand up and seize with our own two hands -- provided, of course, we do not intrude on same set of rights rightfully claimable by others
View Quote
That's all well and good, but unfortunately that's not what the constitution provides for. Which of course is the point of my discussion. Libertarian constitutional ideology (at least on personal rights, not federalism) deviates from the original intent of the constitution, and the mode of constitutional interpretation they must use to incorporate such ideology is dangerous: it reduces the constitution to a nullity, opening it up for the same destruction that has produced its current jurisprudence.
I agree that the federal Bill of Rights was only intended to restrict the federal government
View Quote
Then you will agree the 9th amendment does not incorporate a general protection for all rights you can think of.
but for a guy arguing against creative interpretation, you seem to be "discovering" a lot of new meanings for words that I can't quite seem to make out
View Quote
I will simply assert my "interpretation" is not creative, but, again, illustrative of the original intent.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 8:13:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By Avtomat: That's all well and good, but unfortunately that's not what the constitution provides for.
View Quote
Then please tell me exactly what the Constitution [i]does[/i] provide for.
I will simply assert my "interpretation" is not creative, but, again, illustrative of the original intent.
View Quote
So, you "just know" what the original intent was, but any other interpretation is creative and dangerous? I think (in my case it's just an opinion) that the Framers intended to leave the 9th Amendment a bit open-ended. They said that we have more rights than what's listed, but obviously listing them would be defeating the purpose, as well as impossible. They left it up to us future generations to fend for ourselves and grab whatever rights we got the backbone to grab. Claiming to have compiled a complete list of all rights would clearly have been dangerous. But on the other hand, I shudder to think where we'd be today if the Framers had gone, even with the best intentions, without a Bill of Rights. They did all that they could; they made the best choice possible. Now it's up to us. Now, if you are saying the 9th Amendment or the Constitution as a whole as I interpret it is potentially dangerous, I suppose you are right. Our rights, named or unnamed, could be "reinvented" to provide a lesser level of freedom. Just as a firearm that makes it possible to maintain freedom could be neglected and misused and finally do harm, so the slightly fuzzy Constitution also requires our constant vigilance. I personally do not see any other alternative.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 8:28:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By Avtomat: No, Roe didn't just say fetuses have no rights, if that were true states could still ban abortion.
View Quote
What I was trying to say was that the woman's right to swing her abortion fist would normally end where the fetus's right-to-life nose begins. Take away the latter and you're left with the former right, unencumbered. If fetuses properly had no rights, then I would agree that women did have a genuine right to abortion.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 9:33:26 PM EST
well since SCIENCE proves that life begins when a sperm fertilizes a egg thats why i am pro life somehow its magicly just a organ or a pile of tissue until some time later just doenst fly with me. say i go out and get in a car accident the lady i hit is pregnant her and her "fetis/child" is killed im hit with 2 manslaughter charges agien same scenerio except the lady had a abortion prior to the car crash and she dies instead im hit with one manslaughter charge. why the hell is the fetis not a child when she was getting a abortion but it is when i hit her with my car and kill her!! that was a example i assure u
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 7:45:46 PM EST
My argument (still unaddressed by any responses in this thread) is that if we allow judge to embrace a policy of constitutional interpretation which holds that document to be open to revision to suit a particular political viewpoint that deviates from the constitution's original intent (adding "rights" or "freedoms" not contained in such), we open the door to the removal of other rights that maybe another judge's political view doesn't think is very "free."
View Quote
Agreed. However, we can only do our best to [b]interpret[/b] what the framers original intent was from all their writings. They are no longer here to ask. Therefore we [b]HAVE TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION[/b]. (I am addressing your argument). I DO agree that we shouldnt allow changing the constitution... we have 2 legitimate methods for that: ammendment, and constitutional convention.
Again, Liberals realize this policy could be used to remove rights, but Libertarians, so caught up in rhetoric (republicrats! communitarians! freedom! rights!), do not.
View Quote
Again, I have yet to see anything from the Libertarians that would lead me to this same conclusion. You seem to be inventing "libertarian philosophy" and then denouncing it. All I have ever seen esentially says they want a return to a constitutional federal government. What part of [b]THAT[/b] do you have a problem with? Also, I have noticed you seem to think you are somehow privy to the "original intent" of the framers. Couldnt it be that your [b]interpretation[/b] of the framers original intent is wrong, and someone elses is right?? Louis
Top Top