Libertarians, the new hope of the GOP?

[dan_bgblue]

I know some here have mentioned this, but it is nice to see a national voice offering support for the idea. This does not need to be a long engagement if it is to work. The marriage should take place next week and build for the next 3 years.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/08/why-young-libertarians-could-save-gop/?intcmp=HPBucket

[KeithKSR]

The GOP needs to become more Libertarian on government and liberty issues and less vociferous on social issues.

[bigsky]

GOP won't ever go Libertarian

[suncat05]

I think Ms. Peek is right on point with her article, and I also think that there is lots of room available for Libertarians in the GOP. However, I don't think the GOP 'establishment' is as open to the needed and necessary changes that the GOP needs to make to become viable again.
When you have guys like McCain, McConnell & Boehner leading the GOP and being more interested in furthering the "party line" than allowing fellow GOP members to satisfy the constituents that sent them to Congress to do the people's business, therein lies the problem.
The GOP cerainly needs to evolve some and be a lot more inclusive if they ever want to have another shot of occupying the White House again. However, with the dinosaurs I just mentioned leading the GOP, I can easily see Hillary being our next POTUS, or even 'Ol Joe "the human gaffe" Biden being the next resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The GOP is a mess right now, and most of them are too dumb or unwilling to represent their citizens as they should instead of playing partizan politics first. Which brings up another point, that being the need for TERM LIMITS on these people so that career politicians like Biden, McConnell, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, Rangel, Schumer, etc., etc. could become extinct like they need to be!

[bigsky]

Getting elected in a primary requires litmus tests of anti abortion, anti gay, huge standing army, and even a religious test. Libertarians can't get past those.

[Catonahottinroof]

Getting elected in a primary requires litmus tests of anti abortion, anti gay, huge standing army, and even a religious test. Libertarians can't get past those.

And national elections will continue to be owned by the Dem's.

[bigsky]

Well I could believe we'd change it if we had sent Perry off as our candidate and he got creamed, how we might finally return to ideas of individual freedom and success. But Romney still provides an out for those who advocate an even harder turn to the right wing authoritarianism. "If only we'd had a candidate who fired up the base."

By the way, at the local and state level, republicans still win. We have thirty R Governors, for example, some of them, like our man in Wisconsin, taking care of business.

[CattyWampus]

I think many people, including politicians, fail to understand the difference of personal principles and governance. Is it possible for a politician to be pro-life or pro conventional marriage and still be Libertarian? I think it is. I think it depends on how that politician deals with those issues from a governance standpoint.

Can a person be a Constitutionalist and still be a Libertarian? Can a religious person be a Libertarian? Can a Libertarian be opposed to Roe v. Wade on a constitutional basis? Maybe the answer to those questions is dependent upon your own definition of Libertarianism. Libertarianism seems to be different things to different people.

[bigsky]

Well, Governor No, Gary Johnson, who I voted for, didn't get on the radar in the R primary, didnt get on the radar many places in the general. Neither Johnson nor Paul, the two general L flavors, really had any influence. "Let's try Freedom for a Change" is my bumper sticker, nobody in the two parties liked that sentiment.

In Mt, a fellow running as a libertarian, that I would call a constitutionalist-establishmentarian, took enough constitutionalist votes from the Republican that it gave the election to the Democrat. Essentially, those voters helped provide Obama's majority in the Senate. There was "shadowy money" traced back to d organizations, that targeted these voters to do just that; not win votes but take them away from the R.

[KeithKSR]

The election results could have been quite different had the media done something other than keep its collective lips attached to his butt.

[badrose]

I think many people, including politicians, fail to understand the difference of personal principles and governance. Is it possible for a politician to be pro-life or pro conventional marriage and still be Libertarian? I think it is. I think it depends on how that politician deals with those issues from a governance standpoint.

Can a person be a Constitutionalist and still be a Libertarian? Can a religious person be a Libertarian? Can a Libertarian be opposed to Roe v. Wade on a constitutional basis? Maybe the answer to those questions is dependent upon your own definition of Libertarianism. Libertarianism seems to be different things to different people.

Absolutely!, to answer most of these questions, assuming we can substitute Christian for religious. In fact, there's a distinct difference between the grace that comes with Christianity versus other religions which were/are law-based, at least that's the way it was designed. Too much to add here right now but I'll add more later. I'll leave with this: If you see a sign that says Wet Paint: Do Not Touch, what is your instinct?

[KeithKSR]

One problem is that the GOP candidates for president that can win a national election tend to get fewer votes in earlier blue state balloting in places like Iowa and New Hampshire which results in viable candidates dropping out long before states in the South and West get an opportunity to cast a ballot.

[CattyWampus]

As I have gotten older, I have found that I lean more toward what I understand Libertarianism to be. I don't much care for ideological labels because they seem to pigeon-hole people, but I think this No-Labels crowd are a bunch of Liberals masquerading as Republicans and whose sole purpose is to belittle Conservatives. I've seen many people who declare themselves as socially Liberal but fiscally Conservative who describe themselves as Moderate. I've seen some of these same people claim to be Libertarian.

I assume that most Libertarians believe the Constitution is the ultimate document to define the government's role in the lives of the citizens. By definition, couldn't a Constitutional Conservative be a Libertarian? Do most Libertarians believe the 10th Amendment limits the Federal government? If so, do Libertarians believe that governance should be at the hands of the citizenry? If so, with what is described as "social issues", do Libertarians believe in referendums over legislation, even on the state and local level? For instance, if the people of a state voted for abortion or same-sex marriage to be illegal, would that satisfy the tenets of Libertarianism? At what point is a line drawn between "just leave us alone" and governance by referendum? Is "rule of law" more valid if passed by the citizenry than by a legislative body? How do Libertarians deal with what they think may be an unjust law passed by referendum? Do Libertarians believe in persuasion over legislation?

Yeah, I'm confused, but I'm working on it.

[dan_bgblue]

Hopefully the chief rogue and instigator of the KSR Libertarian party will be along to offer thoughts and answers to your questions.

[bigsky]

Libertarians like me believe governments are instituted to protect our individual rights. So we respect the Bill of Rights first.

We think democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Protecting the rights of others protects my rights.

With exception for the justice system and national defense, and perhaps a few other tasks beyond the ability of people to make happen, government isn't the solution, its the problem and usually results in unintended consequence.

It can be described as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, because those are the targets of the other two parties, government power over your property. You own your physical self, and have the ability to labor or not labor, and the rights to the fruits of that labor. You decide to stay or go.

People like telling others what to do and generally are busy bodies in their neighbors lives. People covet their neighbors wealth. People who run for office play on this nature, and libertarians run against this nature. So they get 1% of the vote.

Libertarians are generally "weak on defense" meaning we think spending billions to blow up other people for their own good creates more problems than it fixes; we are a bit isolationist "minding our own business". We support immigration reform ( extreme libertarians argue for open borders). We like competition and free markets even in areas like education.

We are equal opportunity not equal outcome people. And we recognize that some are born with natural gifts; everyone can't be Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan or Albert Einstein (whose hook shot was legend). So there is a built in inequity in the state of nature. The parable of the talents.

Of course most of us are pragmatic and recognize good governance is more than ideology.

Unearned entitlement, regulation, legislated morality would not be in our platform.

Economic freedom leads to prosperity. The more regulated, the more saddled with debt, the more we interfere with scientific and economic inquiries and take away the fruits of their invention, the less prosperous we are as individuals and a nation.

The libertarian party website is a good place to start. I read today that Illinois is going to vote to require $10 hr minimum wage and they're already the most indebted and corrupt state in the country. In my mind, all that is related.

[badrose]

bigsky, is abortion considered a gray area for most libertarians, mixed, or decidedly in favor of choice?

[bigsky]

Ron Paul libertarians are pro life, libertarians like me, the Gary Johnson group, emphasize the right of the woman to control the labor of her body.

[dan_bgblue]

May I add a comment about how this Libertarian views the abortion issue?

I agree with bigsky that it is the woman's right to chose. Morality is impossible to legislate and if one views the abortion issue to be a moral one, then laws will only muddle the issue and in many cases force a decision to be made that goes against the laws further exacerbating the issue for the woman.

If I am asked my personal opinion of abortion I would council against taking that action unless the life of the woman is in peril if she takes the pregnancy to term. That is just my personal belief and while the council may have an effect on the decision making process of the woman, I do not feel I have any right to impact the decision further by voting for laws that might restrict her options.

Many view abortion as a sin and they wish to legislate morality thru enacting laws, but it is my opinion that those folks should put their energies into councilling and let the chips fall where they may in each individual situation without rancor exhibited to those women that chose a path that does not coincide with their beliefs.

[BigBlueBrock]

More social liberalism, less foreign policy chicken hawking would get my vote. As it stands now, I won't vote for either major party so long as they both continue the foreign policy that's responsible for the Middle East quagmire that exists today. It makes me laugh when Republicans or Democrats argue the Constitutionality of gun control or abortion, but completely ignore that our modern foreign policy is completely removed from what the Founder's ever intended. In the meantime, I'll continue to hope for Zombie Teddy Roosevelt.

[Catonahottinroof]

Guns are constitutional, abortion is not, nor health care, equality of outcome etc. Those have become judicially allocated liberties.
The government fails miserably at upholding its constitutional mandate of securing the nations borders, security of the citizenry.
Libertarianism covers a wide spectrum of beliefs, but for my it's quite simple. Stay out of my home, off my land and out of my personal life. Secure the borders, protect the nation from invasion, regulate commerce......properly..... and carry the mail.
You suck at the obligations to which you are charged Washington DC..

[bigsky]

Tell it, my brothers!

[CitizenBBN]

Hopefully the chief rogue and instigator of the KSR Libertarian party will be along to offer thoughts and answers to your questions.


Oooo Ooooo can I play? :)

Cattywampus -- this is in response to your post re referendums and issues like same sex marriage as well as Libertarianism in general.

Like any entity Libertarian will mean slightly different things to different people, and within the group there can and should be differences of opinion. However, the basics are pretty consistent and the principles that guide the answers are rock solid. In fact I don't view libertarianism as a political party but a set of principles of how America should exist that then must translate into the democratic process.

This nation was founded to insure individual liberty. Economically, politically, morally. Our founders had fled religious persecution but also economic and social and political persecution. In Europe you couldn't start a business without approvals of governments and guilds. Your farm belonged to the local nobleman, given his status by the state. Religion was dictated by the state. Power came from the state and the people were granted such privileges as seen fit by those above you. Nepotism and birthright ruled the day.

America was created from the philosophy of John Locke and Adam Smith. The radical notion that all Men have inalienable rights, that the state answers to them and not the other way around. This was a radical notion, one that had never existed in human history. Both socially and economically each person had the right to pursue his own beliefs and what he believed to be in his best benefit. Property, both personal and real, is an extension of the person and therefore his rights extend to it, because if the state can take a man's property they can control the man, violating the rule that power resides with the individual.

So, with that brief background, America was founded to be libertarian. It was founded by men who made Locke's vision a reality, the only nation to ever do so even now. Locke spoke of "life, liberty and property", no coincidence Jefferson wrote of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

So, what does Libertarianism mean for "modern" policy?

First, I would say the differences between Libertarians and Constitutionalists aren't many. The Constitution is the governing document of the libertarian vision the founders had for the nation. Their very wise attempt to turn a principle of liberty into a functioning government.

There's the first critical point IMO: the form of government, democracy, is NOT the goal. Democracy is a means to an ends, the ends being individual liberty. The Founders did their best to create a government that would guarantee the rights of the People, but the goal is that liberty, not the government. Most if not all Libertarians I know see the Constitution as the best possible effort to do so, and that it should be followed as the wisdom of men far greater than any of us.

So while Libertarianism is loyal to liberty and not governments, the Constitution and the government it sets out is the single best protector of those liberties available, so Libertarians are largely doggedly loyal to the true word of the Constitution.

Re the 9th and 10th Amendments: These are cornerstone Libertarian principles. Clearly the 10th, which says that all powers not given to the state in the Constitution reside with the People. The state has no more power than has been given clearly, whereas the people have all powers named or unnamed or not even conceived of at the time. The rights of the People are limitless, the power of the state is exceedingly controlled.

The 9th amendment as well is Libertarian. For the government to have limited power it must have limited scope, and the Founders created a government that would limit itself by besetting it against itself again and again. The checks and balances of the 3 branches of government, but also the power of the state governments against the federal authority.

Federalism is a key check and balance that has been destroyed, and is IMO the single biggest factor in runaway government. To restore the rights of the People we must restore federalism. 50 states creates a balance against the singular power of Washington.

Also, federalism is critical to economic freedom as well. It creates the key to economic freedom: competition. Have to keep raising taxes to support your runaway government spending? People move to another state. The more economic competition the better, between both people and governments.

Re the question of referendums:

In a way it's a trick question for Libertarians. It's a question of the form of democracy, when democracy is just a means to the ends. Thus it matters not if individual liberty is curtailed by vote of Congress or a referendum on a ballot, curtailment of individual liberty is bad regardless of form. However, in practice it's clear the Founders favored local decision making whenever possible. Not necessarily referendums (opinions varied on the intelligence of the average person) but local versus state, state versus federal.

The Founders were keenly afraid of tyranny of the majority. The concept that "it's what most people want" is incredibly dangerous. In the extreme 51% of people can vote to enslave the other 49%? Of course not. In the Libertarian world the rights of each individual are paramount not the majority getting what it wants. Thus ANY move by government against those rights without proper justification is wrong, regardless of the form of that move.

That being said, there is a difference the Founders made between that thinking at a federal level and at a state level. The Federal authority is severely constrained, but each state can deal with questions of form on its own. The Constitution protects the basic rights of all People, but only as a final arbiter.

For example, I'd argue the ban on pot is anti-Libertarian and unconstitutional at the federal level as the government was given no right to "protect the people from themselves".

At the state level things are less clear. I'd argue it's an invasion of people's rights to have a state ban, but in the system the Founders envisioned it would take an appeal to the federal courts to determine it and states are given fair latitude in such things. There is a threshold at which the federal authority would not get involved. Each state's constitution would guide such things and their courts.

I believe the Founders would strike down the federal ban and leave the decision to the states and their constitutions. While in a purely libertarian view the form of government is irrelevant, in practice the Founders showed time and again a preference for local decisions by local people. There are no absolutes, so in the balance between things they'd break that way given the alternatives.

A great example of this quandary between individual rights and local independence to govern as seen fit is hanging the 10 commandments in schools and court houses. While separation of church and state is very clearly a principle of the libertarian, I don't see how hanging the commandments if decided at a local level shows the state as having required a particular faith. The Constitution didn't say you have a right to not be offended, even by things done by a local government. The question is this: are you harmed, are your rights restricted by that government's actions?

If so you have a case. If however there is no harm other than "I don't like it" I think the Founders would answer that at a minimum it isn't something in which the Federal authority should intervene. It would be up to that state's courts to determine per their constitution.

That's a way to balance these factors. Things must rise to a certain level to require federal action. Otherwise how do we limit federal government? We limit it by leaving as much to the localities and states as possible and intervene only when the inherent liberties of people are being taken away.

So clearly the federal government intervenes against discrimination or unfair enforcement of laws against certain groups, but probably not against something that doesn't create a tangible harm. Now, if the school required reciting the Lord's Prayer we have more of a harm. Certainly if it required helping with projects for the local church it's over the line. It's all gray, and all Libertarians don't have to agree on where that line in the gray is drawn, but we do need to come at it with the right principles.

So here's how same sex marriage would break down for my version of Libertarianism: If we only take from people the rights we absolutely must, there's no justification for taking the right of people to choose to marry someone of the same sex.

That's key: they have that right by birth. It isn't granted to them. It can only be taken away if there is some overriding need to do so. It must be justified, primarily if it infringes on the rights of others for them to exercise it.

Since I see no overriding justification to remove that choice, same sex marriage would be legal for a Libertarian. Doesn't mean I have to like it, or condone it, but I can't use the power of the state to prevent it just b/c I don't like something. (Personally I couldn't care less, but I use it as an example).

Sorry this was rambling in nature, I'll try to post something more coherent. I'm doing 3-4 things at once and bouncing back to this so my train of thought is pretty derailed. I did want to get into the question of local versus federal and referendum versus legislative votes.

[CitizenBBN]

Guns are constitutional, abortion is not, nor health care, equality of outcome etc. Those have become judicially allocated liberties.
The government fails miserably at upholding its constitutional mandate of securing the nations borders, security of the citizenry.
Libertarianism covers a wide spectrum of beliefs, but for my it's quite simple. Stay out of my home, off my land and out of my personal life. Secure the borders, protect the nation from invasion, regulate commerce......properly..... and carry the mail.
You suck at the obligations to which you are charged Washington DC..

The somewhat cliche statement "out of my bedroom and out of my wallet" is still a pretty fair description of Libertarianism.

The proper role of the federal authority:

-- secure the nation's defense
-- prevent economic externalities and asymmetry of information that would prevent competitive functioning of the free markets
-- insure the inherent liberty and property of the individual, specifically law enforcement against criminals and preventing other levels of government from infringing those rights either directly or by proxy.

It's supposed to be a pretty short list. The state can only curtail the rights of the individual in pursuit of those narrow goals and only then with sufficient justification.

There should be equality of opportunity in that the state neither aids nor stands in the way of one person more than another, but there is no equality of outcome. Down that road lies the Dark Side.

There are some tough issues to tackle regardless of one's Libertarian clarity. Abortion is the toughest IMO, but Libertarianism would eliminate 90% of the supposed "issues" in which the federal government clearly shouldn't be involved at all, leaving us with the 10% to grapple with and half of those should probably be best left to the states.

I'm a big fan of "What Would The Founders Do?" thinking. In an imperfect world of gray I trust their interpretation of these principles more than my own. They were far wiser, far smarter than I. If we live by their example we won't stray far from the right path on any given issue.

[Catonahottinroof]

As to the original post, Libertarians are not the savior of the GOP in my mind, but they will cause the GOP to rethink its platform and perceptions if the GOP wants to remain viable.

I'm quite tired of politics being played with my children's future by both parties.

[BigBlueBrock]

We don't have to wonder about what the Founders would do. That's why they created the Constitution and the ability to amend it. Some argue that the Founders intended a strict letter interpretation of the Constitution. That any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is implicitly denied (see Amendment X). Others would argue the Founders allowed for vaguer wording of much of the document so as to allow contextual interpretation as the country grew and moved into the future (see Article I, Section 8). I subscribe to the latter view, because I believe the former paints the Founders as far too short-sighted. I don't intend to argue that point because most on this board are far more interested in peddling their specific dogma than in actually having a reasonable discussion.

[CitizenBBN]

We don't have to wonder about what the Founders would do. That's why they created the Constitution and the ability to amend it. Some argue that the Founders intended a strict letter interpretation of the Constitution. That any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is implicitly denied (see Amendment X). Others would argue the Founders allowed for vaguer wording of much of the document so as to allow contextual interpretation as the country grew and moved into the future (see Article I, Section 8). I subscribe to the latter view, because I believe the former paints the Founders as far too narrow-minded. I don't intend to argue that point because most on this board are far more interested in peddling their specific dogma than in actually having a reasonable discussion.

We don't have to wonder b/c they wrote extensively about what they believed and why they worded things in the Constitution as they did. They knew some things would change over time, thus the ability to amend, but the guiding principles were made very clear in shelves of writings.

For example on the gun issue, some argue the founders meant only for "militias" to have guarantees of gun rights, i.e. the National Guard. This is patently absurd as soon as you read any of the writings of the Founders on the subject. It becomes clear they saw armed individuals as the last barrier to tyranny. Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Monroe, Franklin, the list is nearly all the Founders and they were all clear this is about individuals and not state governments.

yet we have SCOTUS justices ignoring all that writing, piles of evidence of exactly what they meant, to try to twist individual words.

Yes it's a living document, but the goal was to let it live by a set of principles, a set of values. It is the keystone of The Great Experiment. It lives so the Experiment can live, not so it can be manipulated an corrupted into a copy of the Europe they left behind.

It's very clear what the Founders envisioned, very clear what the nation was founded to do for the People, and a lot of what we're doing is destroying that vision. Whether it's written into the constitution or created from thin air by our courts and politicians, it's still wrong.

I do enjoy how those who agree are having a "reasonable discussion" and those who don't are peddling dogma. I'm more than happy to discuss with those who disagree, but I will present evidence to support my view and I expect the same from the other side. That's how one gets to a better understanding.

It's not like I was born with this view. My "dogma" is well researched, I've read extensively the views of all sides. My view is my conclusion based on that research and those debates. Defending that view, even advocating for it, is not wrong and doesn't warrant apology.

It may even be wrong, as I said I'm not as smart as the Founders or millions more, but the way to find out is to engage it and defeat it.

[BigBlueBrock]

The Second Amendment exists (or existed), at least partially, as a way of making sure the populace is armed so the State can more easily mobilize a militia in a time of war. It also exists (or existed) so as to allow citizens the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical state (if necessary). In fact, you could argue that having a standing army is unconstitutional (you can also argue that it is Constitutional, but I'll get to that). The fact that a standing army exists, by the way, practically renders the second part of the Second Amendment moot. The citizens of these United States would have no hope of overturning a tyrannical state that commands the multi-billion dollar military. But that's beside the point.

It is clear what the Founders intended for their time and how they envisioned the Constitution to be used going forward. I certainly don't believe they envisioned or intended a several-hundred-thousand-man-strong standing army, billions of dollars in ships, billions in planes (funny sidebar: The Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the ability to create an Air Force), billions in overseas bases in 100+ countries, and foreign policy that can only be described as 21st-century imperialism. They intended for the Constitution to allow for the counting of slaves as partial persons for tax purposes, but envisioned that we would eventually abolish slavery.

Hell, they started arguing about the powers of Article I Section 8 almost as soon as it was ratified when Hamilton created the First Bank of the United States. Anti-Federalists argued the Constitution didn't explicitly grant Congress that power, he argued Article I Section 8 implicitly did. Amazing that we're still having that same argument, only 70 years ago it was over the New Deal, 50 years ago it was over Social Security, and now - today - it is over health care mandates and what many believe will be an eventual big push to universal healthcare.

Later, the courts argued over the citizenship and rights of those born of slaves and freed people. Dredd Scott, anyone?


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE), to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html) and general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States;

...

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.

There's enough room in those two clauses to defend almost anything. Provide for the common Defense? Sounds like justification for a standing army to me! Provide for the general Welfare (i.e., well-being of the people)? I think that means we can legislate some positive liberties (power and resources to fulfill one's potential in the face of social structures) - like Social Security and universal healthcare. That is, so long as we can pay for them. And if you want to argue that powers not explicitly stated are implicitly denied, then I can argue that the Second Amendment not explicitly allowing any type of firearm implicitly denies all types not available at the ratification of the Constitution. Wee!

At any rate, it would be impossible - today - to copy the Europe they left behind, so that argument is inherently ridiculous. Their Europe no longer exists. They didn't leave Europe and declare independence from the Crown because they didn't want free health care (which wasn't a thing at the time) - they fled from religious and political persecution and declared independence over unfair taxation. The Age of Enlightenment, after all, swept through most of Europe before reaching the likes of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. You can argue for negative liberties (freedom from interference) all you want, but the fact of the matter is modern social structures have created a system of classism where, quite simply, not everyone is born with the same opportunities. I don't believe in guaranteeing equal outcome, but I do believe in giving an equitable start to as many as possible. The fact is, generational poverty is a structural issue that creates systemic inequality and that inequality has to be addressed by more than a proclamation that the poor kid from eastern KY pull himself up by his bootstraps. So you get federal grants and subsidized loans and maybe, just maybe, that kid that grew up dirt poor can afford a pair of bootstraps and pull himself into a college degree and actually find some socioeconomic mobility.

Also, I used the term 'peddling dogma' because the majority of threads here are the same people espousing the exact same opinions ad nauseum and ad infinitum and serve only to reaffirm what everyone already believes. Dissenting opinions are pounced on by the gang and shouted down with extreme prejudice. Very few are actually interested in reasonable discourse and are much more apt to circle-jerking to the popular opinions of this board. I don't care for being piled on, so I generally avoid even reading this board.

[CitizenBBN]

And if you want to argue that powers not explicitly stated are implicitly denied, then I can argue that the Second Amendment not explicitly allowing any type of firearm implicitly denies all types not available at the ratification of the Constitution. Wee!


Just the opposite in fact. All powers not explicitly granted to the government are implicitly denied, NOT powers to the People, for which the opposite is true. The Bill of Rights exists to clarify some key liberties b/c many felt that they needed to be spelled out b/c of this exact problem: if they weren't listed they must not be liberties. They clearly spell out rights of the People, not grant them. They are constraints on government.

You can argue it, but it's very clear there is a difference between the limits on government and the limits on the People. The 9th and 10th make that clear enough. Your view requires us to accept that the government grants people liberties, not that they inherently possess them, and that is the complete opposite of the ideals behind the Constitution and the revolution in general. It simply doesn't stand against the evidence.



At any rate, it would be impossible - today - to copy the Europe they left behind, so that argument is inherently ridiculous. Their Europe no longer exists. They didn't leave Europe and declare independence from the Crown because they didn't want free health care (which wasn't a thing at the time) - they fled from religious and political persecution and declared independence over unfair taxation. The Age of Enlightenment, after all, swept through most of Europe before reaching the likes of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.


Obviously I don't mean Kings and nobles. I mean modern Europe, which never made the ideological break that power flows from the People to the state, and more important in this case how tyranny of the majority tramples those liberties. Europe has become democratic, but not individualistic. It is still focused on the whole, whereas this nation was founded to focus on the individual.

The Left in the US focuses on the whole, in particular how they know what is best for that whole, as opposed to individuals pursuing what they think is in their best interests whether others agree or not.



You can argue for negative liberties (freedom from interference) all you want, but the fact of the matter is modern social structures have created a system of classism where, quite simply, not everyone is born with the same opportunities. I don't believe in guaranteeing equal outcome, but I do believe in giving an equitable start to as many as possible. The fact is, generational poverty is a structural issue that creates systemic inequality and that inequality has to be addressed by more than a proclamation that the poor kid from eastern KY pull himself up by his bootstraps. So you get federal grants and subsidized loans and maybe, just maybe, that kid that grew up dirt poor can afford a pair of bootstraps and pull himself into a college degree and actually find some socioeconomic mobility.



Except it was this mission, to create more equality of beginning, that led to the permanent economic underclass. The War on Poverty, despite it's admirable goals which I support in principle, became a War on the Poor. it created the victim society and the dependence that has enslaved places like Eastern Kentucky. Rather than promote business and development they became dependent on the government. Disability, welfare, are now diseases of that region.

It is even worse in urban areas. The illegitimacy rate among black Americans is now higher than under slavery. that is a direct result of the War on Poverty. You tax what you want to discourage, subsidize what you want to encourage. So we subsidize women who have children without husbands, then take away their subsidies if they manage to save some money.

There is now less social mobility than there was 60 years ago, all because of the desire to create social mobility. Government is inherently ineffective, and does more harm than good. The principles are fine, the results have been consistently disasterous.

How many times do we try the same thing with bad results before we say this is the wrong approach?

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Government social programs are giving out fish. businesses and jobs are teaching him to fish and giving him the pond in which to do it.

The cool thing is we can help the poor without violating Libertarian ideals or having wealth redistribution. We can encourage growth and business and reduce barriers to entry that prevent companies from hiring people who would have high training costs. We can make it cheaper to locate businesses in areas that need the jobs. We can reduce the tax burden so states can build the roads and infrastructure to help those areas.

College tuition is a great example. Fwiw my will leaves much of my estate to funding college scholarships for underprivileged children. It is a cause with which I identify strongly. My mother couldn't afford to go to college and had been accepted and had support of her teachers.

However, look what has happened by doing the liberal way instead of the libertarian way. Direct loans from the government now saddle those graduates with huge loans and have allowed college tuitions to soar. Now it's clear college is a net negative economic investment for many, much of that thanks to government meddling. The Libertarian approach would be to allow 1:1 tax deductions for contributions to those scholarships, or eliminating the payroll taxes for people who provide the part time (or full time) jobs for people working their way through school.

Also to expand what constitutes "higher education." there is nothing wrong with getting a "vocational degree" (like a college business degree somehow isn't one) and having a sound economic future in a trade. Not everyone needs to take their anthropology distribution if they need to provide for their family or simply don't have an interest.

one of the primary paths to move a family to the "professional" level is through engineering. Why have that engineer spend half his tuition on classes in English lit or Chemistry if he doesn't care to do it? Government loan structures become a regulation on the market of providing higher education. Allow the market to clear and encourage it through tax incentives and those things will happen and more people will have mobility.

There are myriad ways to help people pull themselves up, to help them get those bootstraps, and none of them need involve the nanny state or abandoning libertarian principles.

I very much want to give people a chance to move up, but social immobility wasn't created by free markets. Free markets provide that means. It's government that has convinced 10s of millions they aren't smart enough or capable enough to improve their lives, that they must rely on others. It's a horrible disservice to them, and has doomed them to be that permanent underclass.

It's no coincidence generational poverty is tied to generational living in public housing, generational receipt of welfare and food stamps, generational failure of education. It's bad, and it's abandoning the vision of the Founders and economic freedom that got us here.



At any rate, I used the term 'peddling dogma' because the majority of threads here are the same people espousing the exact same opinions ad nauseum and ad infinitum and serve only to reaffirm what everyone already believes. Dissenting opinions are pounced on by the gang and shouted down with extreme prejudice. Very few are actually interesting in reasonable discourse and are much more apt to circle-jerking to the popular opinions of this board. I don't care for being piled on, so I generally avoid even reading this board.

It's true a large percentage here are "conservatvie" or libertarian, or whatever non-liberal name one chooses, but that's true of the UK fan demographic.

I do think we need to do a better job of not letting people "pounce" but no doubt having a more liberal or pro-government action view will get more responses. If those responses are respectful and engaging then it's just defending the view. If not you're right as mods we need to take action.

FWIW more than once we've discussed how to create more political balance on here, but it's very difficult when the demographic is so generally conservative/libertarian. At least among my friends in Kentucky, the more liberal the more likely they aren't even sports fans (I don't know why), and it's not like the south and Kentucky is very balanced vis a vis liberalism to begin with.

Nonetheless I do encourage different views. Like all message boards people post to get things off their chest, that's true on the sports parts too, but I would like to see more balance here and more discussion and less of us all venting, me included.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW I need to get back to real work (this is a bad discussion for me b/c I enjoy its intricacies and will take up my time with it) but I will get back to Hamilton and the Bank of the US versus something like Obamacare. I agree 100% the battles over the Bank of the US, both I and II, provide fascinating insights into the Constitution and its application.

The 2nd Bank in particularly interesting IMO only b/c Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson are such disparate and colorful personalities, but Hamilton/Adams and Jefferson are probably better source material. The entire debate between the Federalists and the Jeffersonians is very interesting. The Alien and Sedition Act and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions is another great microcosm of that debate, and I agree things like the A&S stand in stark contrast to the writings of many Founders.

Hamilton was always an out-lier though and an odd bird. In the end little of his more centralized, even monarchy oriented, vision was incorporated in the Constitution. Thank goodness. lol.

It's now fairly accepted Madison was the intellectual father of the actual document, so I consider his writings to be preeminent esp. to Hamilton's.

[BigBlueBrock]

Just the opposite in fact. All powers not explicitly granted to the government are implicitly denied, NOT powers to the People, for which the opposite is true. The Bill of Rights exists to clarify some key liberties b/c many felt that they needed to be spelled out b/c of this exact problem: if they weren't listed they must not be liberties. They clearly spell out rights of the People, not grant them. They are constraints on government.

You can argue it, but it's very clear there is a difference between the limits on government and the limits on the People. The 9th and 10th make that clear enough. Your view requires us to accept that the government grants people liberties, not that they inherently possess them, and that is the complete opposite of the ideals behind the Constitution and the revolution in general. It simply doesn't stand against the evidence.

I can argue it because the Constitution doesn't define what 'arms' are. I can also argue that powers not explicitly granted are NOT implicitly denied. Because the language in the Constitution (specifically, Article I Section 8) allows for that interpretation.




Except it was this mission, to create more equality of beginning, that led to the permanent economic underclass. The War on Poverty, despite it's admirable goals which I support in principle, became a War on the Poor. it created the victim society and the dependence that has enslaved places like Eastern Kentucky. Rather than promote business and development they became dependent on the government. Disability, welfare, are now diseases of that region.

It is even worse in urban areas. The illegitimacy rate among black Americans is now higher than under slavery. that is a direct result of the War on Poverty. You tax what you want to discourage, subsidize what you want to encourage. So we subsidize women who have children without husbands, then take away their subsidies if they manage to save some money.

There is now less social mobility than there was 60 years ago, all because of the desire to create social mobility. Government is inherently ineffective, and does more harm than good. The principles are fine, the results have been consistently disasterous.

How many times do we try the same thing with bad results before we say this is the wrong approach?

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Government social programs are giving out fish. businesses and jobs are teaching him to fish and giving him the pond in which to do it.


Obviously, some of the programs have only served to institutionalize poverty. I think more should be done to encourage work training and education than is done currently. As this is more a philosophical discussion, the nitty gritty of how that should be done will wait for another discussion. But as an example, when I lost my job in late 2009, the recent stimulus gave me an opportunity that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford. As part of UI benefits I received, I was able to apply for a work training "grant" (as it were) which allowed me to take a class at New Horizon's for a CCNA. Eight weeks (four weeks of crammed lecture/lab work, two separate exams over another four weeks) later I was certified and that certification qualified me for a job at UK, where I've been working for almost three years now - paying taxes the whole time and recompensing the government for its "handout." Positive liberties, ftw.



The cool thing is we can help the poor without violating Libertarian ideals or having wealth redistribution. We can encourage growth and business and reduce barriers to entry that prevent companies from hiring people who would have high training costs. We can make it cheaper to locate businesses in areas that need the jobs. We can reduce the tax burden so states can build the roads and infrastructure to help those areas.

College tuition is a great example. Fwiw my will leaves much of my estate to funding college scholarships for underprivileged children. It is a cause with which I identify strongly. My mother couldn't afford to go to college and had been accepted and had support of her teachers.

However, look what has happened by doing the liberal way instead of the libertarian way. Direct loans from the government now saddle those graduates with huge loans and have allowed college tuitions to soar. Now it's clear college is a net negative economic investment for many, much of that thanks to government meddling. The Libertarian approach would be to allow 1:1 tax deductions for contributions to those scholarships, or eliminating the payroll taxes for people who provide the part time (or full time) jobs for people working their way through school.

Also to expand what constitutes "higher education." there is nothing wrong with getting a "vocational degree" (like a college business degree somehow isn't one) and having a sound economic future in a trade. Not everyone needs to take their anthropology distribution if they need to provide for their family or simply don't have an interest.

one of the primary paths to move a family to the "professional" level is through engineering. Why have that engineer spend half his tuition on classes in English lit or Chemistry if he doesn't care to do it? Government loan structures become a regulation on the market of providing higher education. Allow the market to clear and encourage it through tax incentives and those things will happen and more people will have mobility.

There are myriad ways to help people pull themselves up, to help them get those bootstraps, and none of them need involve the nanny state or abandoning libertarian principles.

I very much want to give people a chance to move up, but social immobility wasn't created by free markets. Free markets provide that means. It's government that has convinced 10s of millions they aren't smart enough or capable enough to improve their lives, that they must rely on others. It's a horrible disservice to them, and has doomed them to be that permanent underclass.

It's no coincidence generational poverty is tied to generational living in public housing, generational receipt of welfare and food stamps, generational failure of education. It's bad, and it's abandoning the vision of the Founders and economic freedom that got us here.

These are all avenues worthy of discussion, but this viewpoint relies heavily on the benevolence of the "haves." Consistent and meaningful contribution to scholarships on the whims of the few is hard to guarantee, at least enough to educate more than a handful, and having most people work full-time while trying to get an education would drastically retard economic growth for the middle class. But again, I take issue with the core of your argument - which is that the Constitution allows for no leeway whatsoever as far as providing positive liberties to the people. You can't rely on the benevolence of the few for this because I believe that, given the chance, the 1% would do what they could to concentrate more of the wealth at the top. They're not interested in helping the "have-nots" become "haves," because that means a smaller piece of the pie for the overall 1%.



It's true a large percentage here are "conservatvie" or libertarian, or whatever non-liberal name one chooses, but that's true of the UK fan demographic.

I do think we need to do a better job of not letting people "pounce" but no doubt having a more liberal or pro-government action view will get more responses. If those responses are respectful and engaging then it's just defending the view. If not you're right as mods we need to take action.

FWIW more than once we've discussed how to create more political balance on here, but it's very difficult when the demographic is so generally conservative/libertarian. At least among my friends in Kentucky, the more liberal the more likely they aren't even sports fans (I don't know why), and it's not like the south and Kentucky is very balanced vis a vis liberalism to begin with.

Nonetheless I do encourage different views. Like all message boards people post to get things off their chest, that's true on the sports parts too, but I would like to see more balance here and more discussion and less of us all venting, me included.

I don't have an issue with fiscal conservative values in general, so long as a person is willing to have a rational and reasonable discussion. It's when I get dog-piled with half-reasoned arguments that I become frustrated.

[BigBlueBrock]

FWIW I need to get back to real work (this is a bad discussion for me b/c I enjoy its intricacies and will take up my time with it) but I will get back to Hamilton and the Bank of the US versus something like Obamacare.

I don't personally care for most of the Affordable Care Act, but probably not for the reasons you dislike it. Obamacare didn't do enough to address the systemic problem of health care in America, which is why it's so expensive in the first place. There needed to be more health care reform, less mandate for me to really jump on board. I personally agree with requiring insurance companies to cover previous conditions and I like that someone can now stay on their parents health insurance through the entirety of their time in college, but again, all that did was increase private health insurance companies' bottom lines.

But the fact of the matter is that Obamacare is a precipitant for an eventual push for universal healthcare. Get Americans used to the idea of everyone having health insurance first (and why that's a good thing for everyone), then move to reform/nationalize health care coverage with a series of legislative action down the road. By 2030, I'd put money on the US having health care similar to Canada's. The simple fact is that, whatever your or my viewpoint on this issue is, the electorate has trended in favor of single-payer over the course of the last decade, and that support will continue to grow. As Baby Boomers become fewer in number, support for single-payer will become easier to garner. Which is actually ironic.

[KeithKSR]

I don't personally care for most of the Affordable Care Act, but probably not for the reasons you dislike it. Obamacare didn't do enough to address the systemic problem of health care in America, which is why it's so expensive in the first place. There needed to be more health care reform, less mandate for me to really jump on board. I personally agree with requiring insurance companies to cover previous conditions and I like that someone can now stay on their parents health insurance through the entirety of their time in college, but again, all that did was increase private health insurance companies' bottom lines.

But the fact of the matter is that Obamacare is a precipitant for an eventual push for universal healthcare. Get Americans used to the idea of everyone having health insurance first (and why that's a good thing for everyone), then move to reform/nationalize health care coverage with a series of legislative action down the road. By 2030, I'd put money on the US having health care similar to Canada's. The simple fact is that, whatever your or my viewpoint on this issue is, the electorate has trended in favor of single-payer over the course of the last decade, and that support will continue to grow. As Baby Boomers become fewer in number, support for single-payer will become easier to garner. Which is actually ironic.

The problem with any government run healthcare system is that it exponentially increases costs for all consumers over a period of time. Used to be people had major medical coverage in the event their family member was hospitalized. At that time a doctor's visit was $25, not $300-$400 like it is today. Medicaid was a huge driving force in raising the prices for everyone else.

In regards to Libertarian philosophy, there are a lot of people who vote GOP that are much more Libertarian than in views than they are in line with the more liberal members of the GOP; but vote GOP because the views are closer to their own than the DNC and because Libertarian party candidates have little chance to win.

[BigBlueBrock]

The problem with any government run healthcare system is that it exponentially increases costs for all consumers over a period of time.

The United States spends more on health care per capita and as a percentage of GDP than any other nation in the world. We spend nearly twice what Canada does with its single-payer system and more than twice what England does with its universal healthcare. So I'm not sure the evidence supports this claim.