Curious, why do Libertarians only seem to care about the federal government?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I didn't read Fox's post as saying or implying that it was "ok" to violate anybody's property rights.

I read her post as saying that the local government is more likely to be RESPONSIVE but that, failing that, we retain the right to move to a different state. Experimentation is thus much more practical within the States.

I do agree that "moving" is not the most viable of solutions. But there ARE checks on the power and authority of the States. It's just that SOME of the checks on government power are not the same at the state level as they are at the Federal level. And there are reasons for this. Good reasons.

No, she's saying everything that you are discussing here, but here's the part I objected to in bold:

Where I have found libertarians to be wishy washy is when they jump on the band wagon to want it to be illegal for schools to include intelligent design in the curriculum, for example, or who want there to be no zoning laws or other such restrictions imposed by local governments, or who demand that there be no creche on the Courthouse lawn, but they don't see liberty as the choice to HAVE zoning laws and such other restrictions in the local society or intelligent design in the school or a creche on the courthouse lawn as the people wish. The wishy washy libertarians don't see how the ACLU oversteps its purpose and actually becomes as oppressive as the government actions it claims it protects us against.

We cannot be free unless the people, in any given area, are free to form the society they wish to have, are allowed to be as narrow minded or broad minded as they feel led, are allowed to create an environment that the rest of us would not want on a bet. A tyranny of the minority is not possible in a society that is truly free. A tyranny of the majority won't happen if our unalienable rights are recognized and protected. But again, if the federal government is allowed to dictate to everybody what sort of society they must have, none of us are in any way free.

Zoning laws are laws that violate private property. People forming "the society they wish to have" is another example, because not everybody is going to agree. So if the society that the majority wishes to have violates the property rights of the minority, it's no better whatsoever than if the federal government does it. You're not free just because you can move to another state, just as you're not free because you could move to another country if it were the federal government. You're free when your private property rights are secure. Period.

Zoning laws at the local level are part of the social contract to protect property values and the character of the community. They should always be based on the majority will and agreement. And of course everybody is not going to agree, which is why social contract is based on the majority will. If the majority don't want zoning, there should be no zoning. If the majority do want zoning there should be zoning.

Freedom is the right to have it as the people collectively want their society to be without the right to demand that all other societies also conform. But the people themselves should have the right to make whatever rules they want in their own community that makes it possible for them to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And, if things are working out as expected, they should be able to change those rules for something different.

And if you don't like those laws, you should have every right to get together with other like minded folks and form a different kind of society that is more to your liking.

And still, the federal government should have no say in what the social contract will be. If we hand those rights to the federal government to administer, we have no rights of any kind at all.

Ok, I live on my property and want to form my own society where private property rights are respected. Am I now exempt from this "social contract" that I never signed saying that my property is forfeit to the majority of the people within an arbitrary set of borders?

 

[bripat9643]

I never hear them objecting to the nanny statism going on at the state and local level. That impacts our lives a lot more. If you have a bunch of liberals banning everything they don't like at the state level, it won't really matter too much what the feds are doing.

You obviously don't read any libertarian literature because the criticize state and local government all the time.

 

[bripat9643]

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


i have tried in vain in the past to get the people at this sight to discuss the federalist papers.

it never seems to get discussed

libertarians are fans of the anti-federalist papers. The federalist papers were a justification for big government.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, she's saying everything that you are discussing here, but here's the part I objected to in bold:



Zoning laws are laws that violate private property. People forming "the society they wish to have" is another example, because not everybody is going to agree. So if the society that the majority wishes to have violates the property rights of the minority, it's no better whatsoever than if the federal government does it. You're not free just because you can move to another state, just as you're not free because you could move to another country if it were the federal government. You're free when your private property rights are secure. Period.

Zoning laws at the local level are part of the social contract to protect property values and the character of the community. They should always be based on the majority will and agreement. And of course everybody is not going to agree, which is why social contract is based on the majority will. If the majority don't want zoning, there should be no zoning. If the majority do want zoning there should be zoning.

Freedom is the right to have it as the people collectively want their society to be without the right to demand that all other societies also conform. But the people themselves should have the right to make whatever rules they want in their own community that makes it possible for them to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And, if things are working out as expected, they should be able to change those rules for something different.

And if you don't like those laws, you should have every right to get together with other like minded folks and form a different kind of society that is more to your liking.

And still, the federal government should have no say in what the social contract will be. If we hand those rights to the federal government to administer, we have no rights of any kind at all.

Ok, I live on my property and want to form my own society where private property rights are respected. Am I now exempt from this "social contract" that I never signed saying that my property is forfeit to the majority of the people within an arbitrary set of borders?

But when you move to a town or help set one up, when you move into a new zoned neighborhood, when you rent a space for your business in a shopping center, you are voluntarily signing on to the social contract in place within those particular societies. It would be a problem if you are in a place and the community attempted to change the zoning without grandfathering you in. And there are legal remedies for that in all 50 states.

When the federal government makes rules and regs regarding your property etc., you have little or no legal remedy and are subject to government tyranny. That should always be resisted by freedom loving people.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Zoning laws at the local level are part of the social contract to protect property values and the character of the community. They should always be based on the majority will and agreement. And of course everybody is not going to agree, which is why social contract is based on the majority will. If the majority don't want zoning, there should be no zoning. If the majority do want zoning there should be zoning.

Freedom is the right to have it as the people collectively want their society to be without the right to demand that all other societies also conform. But the people themselves should have the right to make whatever rules they want in their own community that makes it possible for them to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And, if things are working out as expected, they should be able to change those rules for something different.

And if you don't like those laws, you should have every right to get together with other like minded folks and form a different kind of society that is more to your liking.

And still, the federal government should have no say in what the social contract will be. If we hand those rights to the federal government to administer, we have no rights of any kind at all.

Ok, I live on my property and want to form my own society where private property rights are respected. Am I now exempt from this "social contract" that I never signed saying that my property is forfeit to the majority of the people within an arbitrary set of borders?

But when you move to a town or help set one up, when you move into a new zoned neighborhood, when you rent a space for your business in a shopping center, you are voluntarily signing on to the social contract in place within those particular societies. It would be a problem if you are in a place and the community attempted to change the zoning without grandfathering you in. And there are legal remedies for that in all 50 states.

When the federal government makes rules and regs regarding your property etc., you have little or no legal remedy and are subject to government tyranny. That should always be resisted by freedom loving people.

You are subject to government tyranny if your property rights are violated at the local level by some mythical social contract as well. The simple fact is that any argument you make for the federal government being tyrannical can equally apply to the state or local level, and any argument you make defending the local or state governments can equally apply to the federal government.

If there's a social contract at the local level then there's a social contract at the federal level and you implicitly agreed to it by existing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Zoning laws at the local level are part of the social contract to protect property values and the character of the community. They should always be based on the majority will and agreement. And of course everybody is not going to agree, which is why social contract is based on the majority will. If the majority don't want zoning, there should be no zoning. If the majority do want zoning there should be zoning.

Freedom is the right to have it as the people collectively want their society to be without the right to demand that all other societies also conform. But the people themselves should have the right to make whatever rules they want in their own community that makes it possible for them to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And, if things are working out as expected, they should be able to change those rules for something different.

And if you don't like those laws, you should have every right to get together with other like minded folks and form a different kind of society that is more to your liking.

And still, the federal government should have no say in what the social contract will be. If we hand those rights to the federal government to administer, we have no rights of any kind at all.

Ok, I live on my property and want to form my own society where private property rights are respected. Am I now exempt from this "social contract" that I never signed saying that my property is forfeit to the majority of the people within an arbitrary set of borders?

But when you move to a town or help set one up, when you move into a new zoned neighborhood, when you rent a space for your business in a shopping center, you are voluntarily signing on to the social contract in place within those particular societies. It would be a problem if you are in a place and the community attempted to change the zoning without grandfathering you in. And there are legal remedies for that in all 50 states.

When the federal government makes rules and regs regarding your property etc., you have little or no legal remedy and are subject to government tyranny. That should always be resisted by freedom loving people.

If there’s little or no legal remedy, then how will this ‘resistance’ manifest?

 

[FA_Q2]

I didn't read Fox's post as saying or implying that it was "ok" to violate anybody's property rights.

I read her post as saying that the local government is more likely to be RESPONSIVE but that, failing that, we retain the right to move to a different state. Experimentation is thus much more practical within the States.

I do agree that "moving" is not the most viable of solutions. But there ARE checks on the power and authority of the States. It's just that SOME of the checks on government power are not the same at the state level as they are at the Federal level. And there are reasons for this. Good reasons.

No, she's saying everything that you are discussing here, but here's the part I objected to in bold:

Where I have found libertarians to be wishy washy is when they jump on the band wagon to want it to be illegal for schools to include intelligent design in the curriculum, for example, or who want there to be no zoning laws or other such restrictions imposed by local governments, or who demand that there be no creche on the Courthouse lawn, but they don't see liberty as the choice to HAVE zoning laws and such other restrictions in the local society or intelligent design in the school or a creche on the courthouse lawn as the people wish. The wishy washy libertarians don't see how the ACLU oversteps its purpose and actually becomes as oppressive as the government actions it claims it protects us against.

We cannot be free unless the people, in any given area, are free to form the society they wish to have, are allowed to be as narrow minded or broad minded as they feel led, are allowed to create an environment that the rest of us would not want on a bet. A tyranny of the minority is not possible in a society that is truly free. A tyranny of the majority won't happen if our unalienable rights are recognized and protected. But again, if the federal government is allowed to dictate to everybody what sort of society they must have, none of us are in any way free.

Zoning laws are laws that violate private property. People forming "the society they wish to have" is another example, because not everybody is going to agree. So if the society that the majority wishes to have violates the property rights of the minority, it's no better whatsoever than if the federal government does it. You're not free just because you can move to another state, just as you're not free because you could move to another country if it were the federal government. You're free when your private property rights are secure. Period.

Zoning laws at the local level are part of the social contract to protect property values and the character of the community. They should always be based on the majority will and agreement. And of course everybody is not going to agree, which is why social contract is based on the majority will. If the majority don't want zoning, there should be no zoning. If the majority do want zoning there should be zoning.

Freedom is the right to have it as the people collectively want their society to be without the right to demand that all other societies also conform. But the people themselves should have the right to make whatever rules they want in their own community that makes it possible for them to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And, if things are working out as expected, they should be able to change those rules for something different.

And if you don't like those laws, you should have every right to get together with other like minded folks and form a different kind of society that is more to your liking.

And still, the federal government should have no say in what the social contract will be. If we hand those rights to the federal government to administer, we have no rights of any kind at all.

I can understand where you are coming from but your argument is no different than when these things are used on the federal level. There are ways to do this without the government getting involved. There was talk here earlier about home owners associations. THIS is how things of that nature should be controlled. A community gets together and agrees to the conditions. When you get government involved, that assures that there are going to be people strong armed into that kind of relationship.

You state:
“And if you don't like those laws, you should have every right to get together with other like minded folks and form a different kind of society that is more to your liking.”
But the laws that you are referring to specifically don’t give you that option. That is the problem with involving the government.

Further, when you cede that power, it expands. That is the very nature of government and there will be grater infringements than what you expect. We can even see that now where the government essentially sells a zoning change to the company that wants to move into a particular space. That occurred in a housing development in CA that I lived near. The zoning was changed to allow a recycling plant to move into the lot next to the development. You think that ‘community’ was on board with that idea? Of course not but we have all ceded the control of that to the government so they had no real say.

 

[editec]

Because the states are already weak enough that few of them can still challenge major coporations.

The Federal government, on the other hand, still can mess with those corporations, so naturally, like good tools, the Libertarian fools take their orders from the corporations' talking-head TV and radio propagandists

 

[Foxfyre]

There's no difference between a local government or federal government dictating what society everybody should have in terms of freedom. Libertarians simply want property rights respected. The local government nor the federal government has the right to violate property rights, regardless of whether it's through zoning laws or what have you. You say this is "what the people want," but you could make that same for federal government laws. Oh, the "people" of the U.S. want such and such so it must be good. No level of government has the right to violate property rights, that's the libertarian position, regardless of what "society" says or wants.

As far as school curriculums, libertarians believe that all schools should be privatized and parents should be permitted to send their children to whatever school they want. Whether that school teaches intelligent design or not would be up them, and their customers, of course.

Yes there is a difference between local government and federal government. The federal government will base policy and laws on a one-size-fits-all approach or will single out special groups to favor in order to increase its own power and the personal fortunes of those in government. And if it angers one group, it has plenty of others it can manipulate or bribe and offset any negative reaction. And there is absolutely nothing the minority can do about it but just suck it up and endure. The people don't get to vote on much, if anything, the federal government does.

At the local level, the government is far more likely to be sensitive to the attitudes and needs of those they represent. And is far more likely to be responsive to the majority vote that will determine all issues having a major impact on the people whether that is a tax increase or a capital outlay for street improvements, or whatever. And if a minority isn't happy with the way things are, they can move to a location more to their liking. They aren't stuck with an unacceptable situation (to them) that is univeral across the country.

If we were truly free, those people who want all schools privatized could go in that direction. Those wanting a social contract in which resources and pooled to form a local public school district could do that. And the federal government would have no say, influence, or ability to dictate or manipulate whatsoever.

Why should I have to move when I own property and the majority in my locale decides to violate my property rights? And why can't people just move out of the country if they don't like what the U.S. government does? Canada's not that far away.

You don't have to move. You can choose to stay and conform to the society your fellow local citizens have chosen even if some or all of that is not to your liking. And if it is too restrictive or unpleasant for your tastes you can move in with another group more to your liking.

But why should the majority design a society/community/way of life around what you want when you are very much out of step with the majority? Freedom allows people to design and have the sort of society they wish to have. And you give up none of your freedoms and liberties if you don't like what they choose and choose something different. You do give up your constitutionally protected liberties when you move to another country.

As IlarMeilyr said: Canada can tell you that you can't move there. New Jersey can't.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, she's saying everything that you are discussing here, but here's the part I objected to in bold:



Zoning laws are laws that violate private property. People forming "the society they wish to have" is another example, because not everybody is going to agree. So if the society that the majority wishes to have violates the property rights of the minority, it's no better whatsoever than if the federal government does it. You're not free just because you can move to another state, just as you're not free because you could move to another country if it were the federal government. You're free when your private property rights are secure. Period.

Zoning laws at the local level are part of the social contract to protect property values and the character of the community. They should always be based on the majority will and agreement. And of course everybody is not going to agree, which is why social contract is based on the majority will. If the majority don't want zoning, there should be no zoning. If the majority do want zoning there should be zoning.

Freedom is the right to have it as the people collectively want their society to be without the right to demand that all other societies also conform. But the people themselves should have the right to make whatever rules they want in their own community that makes it possible for them to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And, if things are working out as expected, they should be able to change those rules for something different.

And if you don't like those laws, you should have every right to get together with other like minded folks and form a different kind of society that is more to your liking.

And still, the federal government should have no say in what the social contract will be. If we hand those rights to the federal government to administer, we have no rights of any kind at all.

I can understand where you are coming from but your argument is no different than when these things are used on the federal level. There are ways to do this without the government getting involved. There was talk here earlier about home owners associations. THIS is how things of that nature should be controlled. A community gets together and agrees to the conditions. When you get government involved, that assures that there are going to be people strong armed into that kind of relationship.

You state:
“And if you don't like those laws, you should have every right to get together with other like minded folks and form a different kind of society that is more to your liking.”
But the laws that you are referring to specifically don’t give you that option. That is the problem with involving the government.

Further, when you cede that power, it expands. That is the very nature of government and there will be grater infringements than what you expect. We can even see that now where the government essentially sells a zoning change to the company that wants to move into a particular space. That occurred in a housing development in CA that I lived near. The zoning was changed to allow a recycling plant to move into the lot next to the development. You think that ‘community’ was on board with that idea? Of course not but we have all ceded the control of that to the government so they had no real say.

So stop ceding the control to those who will trample on your liberties. I guarantee you that a strong show of support from the community and people willing to be involved would have prevented that recycling plant from going in there. I have been part of such efforts and they are almost always effective. Those too lazy or too busy or unwilling to get involved pretty much deserve what they get.

And of course anytime you have humans involved, there is always a chance of mistakes, misfires, and something stupid going on. And we can always point to some anecdotal evidence to prove it. But over the long term, if we all share the goal of freedom to be who we choose to be, we'll get it right most of the time. To assume that the federal government will get anythng more right than the local government is the ultimate naivete and fails to note that the mistakes the federal government makes are too often universal for everybody and much more difficult to prevent and much more difficult to fix. And much more likely to be for self serving purposes rather than for the general welfare.

Limit the federal government to doing what MUST be done in order for the individual states to operate effectively as one nation, to provide the common defense, and to recognize and protect our unalienable rights, and then let the states and local government, under the watchful eye of the people, do all other government. That is the only way to protect our freedoms and allow maximum pursuit of happiness. When government is local, the people in the next community or the next state can't shield or protect the bad eggs you choose to vote out of office.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes there is a difference between local government and federal government. The federal government will base policy and laws on a one-size-fits-all approach or will single out special groups to favor in order to increase its own power and the personal fortunes of those in government. And if it angers one group, it has plenty of others it can manipulate or bribe and offset any negative reaction. And there is absolutely nothing the minority can do about it but just suck it up and endure. The people don't get to vote on much, if anything, the federal government does.

At the local level, the government is far more likely to be sensitive to the attitudes and needs of those they represent. And is far more likely to be responsive to the majority vote that will determine all issues having a major impact on the people whether that is a tax increase or a capital outlay for street improvements, or whatever. And if a minority isn't happy with the way things are, they can move to a location more to their liking. They aren't stuck with an unacceptable situation (to them) that is univeral across the country.

If we were truly free, those people who want all schools privatized could go in that direction. Those wanting a social contract in which resources and pooled to form a local public school district could do that. And the federal government would have no say, influence, or ability to dictate or manipulate whatsoever.

Why should I have to move when I own property and the majority in my locale decides to violate my property rights? And why can't people just move out of the country if they don't like what the U.S. government does? Canada's not that far away.

You don't have to move. You can choose to stay and conform to the society your fellow local citizens have chosen even if some or all of that is not to your liking. And if it is too restrictive or unpleasant for your tastes you can move in with another group more to your liking.

But why should the majority design a society/community/way of life around what you want when you are very much out of step with the majority? Freedom allows people to design and have the sort of society they wish to have. And you give up none of your freedoms and liberties if you don't like what they choose and choose something different. You do give up your constitutionally protected liberties when you move to another country.

As IlarMeilyr said: Canada can tell you that you can't move there. New Jersey can't.

Why should the majority of the country conform to what you want?

 

[FA_Q2]

Zoning laws at the local level are part of the social contract to protect property values and the character of the community. They should always be based on the majority will and agreement. And of course everybody is not going to agree, which is why social contract is based on the majority will. If the majority don't want zoning, there should be no zoning. If the majority do want zoning there should be zoning.

Freedom is the right to have it as the people collectively want their society to be without the right to demand that all other societies also conform. But the people themselves should have the right to make whatever rules they want in their own community that makes it possible for them to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And, if things are working out as expected, they should be able to change those rules for something different.

And if you don't like those laws, you should have every right to get together with other like minded folks and form a different kind of society that is more to your liking.

And still, the federal government should have no say in what the social contract will be. If we hand those rights to the federal government to administer, we have no rights of any kind at all.

I can understand where you are coming from but your argument is no different than when these things are used on the federal level. There are ways to do this without the government getting involved. There was talk here earlier about home owners associations. THIS is how things of that nature should be controlled. A community gets together and agrees to the conditions. When you get government involved, that assures that there are going to be people strong armed into that kind of relationship.

You state:
“And if you don't like those laws, you should have every right to get together with other like minded folks and form a different kind of society that is more to your liking.”
But the laws that you are referring to specifically don’t give you that option. That is the problem with involving the government.

Further, when you cede that power, it expands. That is the very nature of government and there will be grater infringements than what you expect. We can even see that now where the government essentially sells a zoning change to the company that wants to move into a particular space. That occurred in a housing development in CA that I lived near. The zoning was changed to allow a recycling plant to move into the lot next to the development. You think that ‘community’ was on board with that idea? Of course not but we have all ceded the control of that to the government so they had no real say.

So stop ceding the control to those who will trample on your liberties. I guarantee you that a strong show of support from the community and people willing to be involved would have prevented that recycling plant from going in there. I have been part of such efforts and they are almost always effective. Those too lazy or too busy or unwilling to get involved pretty much deserve what they get.

Then you would be wrong. They were quite motivated and they even got the local radio and TV stations involved. It still failed. They were a small voice in a larger area. No real control over the government in that area and the talking point about creating jobs and making the earth a greener place was worth more than their support.

In the end, their rights and lives were not worth trading the political dollars and stomping points. That’s government for you.

And of course anytime you have humans involved, there is always a chance of mistakes, misfires, and something stupid going on. And we can always point to some anecdotal evidence to prove it. But over the long term, if we all share the goal of freedom to be who we choose to be, we'll get it right most of the time. To assume that the federal government will get anythng more right than the local government is the ultimate naivete and fails to note that the mistakes the federal government makes are too often universal for everybody and much more difficult to prevent and much more difficult to fix. And much more likely to be for self serving purposes rather than for the general welfare.

To assume the state/city government is going to get anything more right than the individual communities ‘is the ultimate naiveté.’ You see, the statements don’t change. The real motive power does not belong in the federal government but it ALSO does not belong in the state one either. It belongs with the PEOPLE.

Limit the federal government to doing what MUST be done in order for the individual states to operate effectively as one nation, to provide the common defense, and to recognize and protect our unalienable rights, and then let the states and local government, under the watchful eye of the people, do all other government. That is the only way to protect our freedoms and allow maximum pursuit of happiness. When government is local, the people in the next community or the next state can't shield or protect the bad eggs you choose to vote out of office.

Sure. I can agree with that. I also think that the state should be limited though to just what the cities cannot accomplish and the cities limited to only that which the people themselves cannot accomplish. That is the most important part of that. The government at ALL levels should be limited with the power base in the hands of the people.

 

[FA_Q2]

Because the states are already weak enough that few of them can still challenge major coporations.

The Federal government, on the other hand, still can mess with those corporations, so naturally, like good tools, the Libertarian fools take their orders from the corporations' talking-head TV and radio propagandists

Care to point out ONE of those talking heads. Again, you are flat out lying about other posters here by putting bullshit in their mouths so to speak.

Considering how annoyed you get if someone does not infer your points correctly, this is bullshit.

 

[KevinWestern]

I never hear them objecting to the nanny statism going on at the state and local level. That impacts our lives a lot more. If you have a bunch of liberals banning everything they don't like at the state level, it won't really matter too much what the feds are doing.

I think Libertarians do object at a local level (at times), but you generally won't hear about it because it's at a local level and not on national news outlets.

Secondly, local politics are much easier to control and generally have less special interests pouring into reelection campaigns, ect. In a day and age of limited time and resources, sometimes you have to go after our biggest issues - a corrupt Federal Gov't - first. That approach makes sense to me.

Finally, "Tyranny" occurs when we - the voters - no longer have a grasp or control on what our gov't is doing; generally speaking, our Federal Gov't is much more susceptible to that scenario due to the fact that (for most people) it is located far, far away from wherever we call home and the pushers/movers are billionaires with whom the average guy can't compete with.


.

 

[amrchaos]

I never hear them objecting to the nanny statism going on at the state and local level. That impacts our lives a lot more. If you have a bunch of liberals banning everything they don't like at the state level, it won't really matter too much what the feds are doing.

I am not a libertarian but the answer is straight forward.

The Feds ride everybodies ass! They are too damn powerful!

 

[Foxfyre]

I can understand where you are coming from but your argument is no different than when these things are used on the federal level. There are ways to do this without the government getting involved. There was talk here earlier about home owners associations. THIS is how things of that nature should be controlled. A community gets together and agrees to the conditions. When you get government involved, that assures that there are going to be people strong armed into that kind of relationship.

You state:
“And if you don't like those laws, you should have every right to get together with other like minded folks and form a different kind of society that is more to your liking.”
But the laws that you are referring to specifically don’t give you that option. That is the problem with involving the government.

Further, when you cede that power, it expands. That is the very nature of government and there will be grater infringements than what you expect. We can even see that now where the government essentially sells a zoning change to the company that wants to move into a particular space. That occurred in a housing development in CA that I lived near. The zoning was changed to allow a recycling plant to move into the lot next to the development. You think that ‘community’ was on board with that idea? Of course not but we have all ceded the control of that to the government so they had no real say.

So stop ceding the control to those who will trample on your liberties. I guarantee you that a strong show of support from the community and people willing to be involved would have prevented that recycling plant from going in there. I have been part of such efforts and they are almost always effective. Those too lazy or too busy or unwilling to get involved pretty much deserve what they get.

Then you would be wrong. They were quite motivated and they even got the local radio and TV stations involved. It still failed. They were a small voice in a larger area. No real control over the government in that area and the talking point about creating jobs and making the earth a greener place was worth more than their support.

In the end, their rights and lives were not worth trading the political dollars and stomping points. That’s government for you.

And of course anytime you have humans involved, there is always a chance of mistakes, misfires, and something stupid going on. And we can always point to some anecdotal evidence to prove it. But over the long term, if we all share the goal of freedom to be who we choose to be, we'll get it right most of the time. To assume that the federal government will get anythng more right than the local government is the ultimate naivete and fails to note that the mistakes the federal government makes are too often universal for everybody and much more difficult to prevent and much more difficult to fix. And much more likely to be for self serving purposes rather than for the general welfare.

To assume the state/city government is going to get anything more right than the individual communities ‘is the ultimate naiveté.’ You see, the statements don’t change. The real motive power does not belong in the federal government but it ALSO does not belong in the state one either. It belongs with the PEOPLE.

Limit the federal government to doing what MUST be done in order for the individual states to operate effectively as one nation, to provide the common defense, and to recognize and protect our unalienable rights, and then let the states and local government, under the watchful eye of the people, do all other government. That is the only way to protect our freedoms and allow maximum pursuit of happiness. When government is local, the people in the next community or the next state can't shield or protect the bad eggs you choose to vote out of office.

Sure. I can agree with that. I also think that the state should be limited though to just what the cities cannot accomplish and the cities limited to only that which the people themselves cannot accomplish. That is the most important part of that. The government at ALL levels should be limited with the power base in the hands of the people.

Coulda - woulda - shoulda. Again a 'small voice' within a much larger voice will indeed usually get shouted down when the will of the majority must prevail. Without looking at the whole history of that recycling center, I don't know if my philosophy or yours would prevail. And it probably isn't important enought to either of us to bother researching it.

But while your philosophy of government structure, which in many ways parallels my own, is defensible in theory, again that is for the majority to decide. If the majority wants the state government to manage the schools or any other public services, and they vote that way, then the will of the people have spoken. If the majority of the people want local control, and vote that way, that is the way it should be.

And right now a majority of the people are voting to give away our rights to an ever more bloated, constantly growing, and ever more authoritarian federal government, and that too is the will of the people, however stupid that is. Freedom allows stupidity and freedom allows us to give away our freedoms for whatever reason.

All we can do is keep making a reasoned and credible argument for why that is folly for people who value freedom. We won't do it by trashing other people or attacking their heroes. We will do it by teaching the concepts the Founders believed. If we fail, I do believe we are the last generation who will have any ability to reverse our present course that results with us all being in bondage. And the USA the Founders envisioned will be no more.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should I have to move when I own property and the majority in my locale decides to violate my property rights? And why can't people just move out of the country if they don't like what the U.S. government does? Canada's not that far away.

You don't have to move. You can choose to stay and conform to the society your fellow local citizens have chosen even if some or all of that is not to your liking. And if it is too restrictive or unpleasant for your tastes you can move in with another group more to your liking.

But why should the majority design a society/community/way of life around what you want when you are very much out of step with the majority? Freedom allows people to design and have the sort of society they wish to have. And you give up none of your freedoms and liberties if you don't like what they choose and choose something different. You do give up your constitutionally protected liberties when you move to another country.

As IlarMeilyr said: Canada can tell you that you can't move there. New Jersey can't.

Why should the majority of the country conform to what you want?

If the majority of the country thinks I'm wrong, it shouldn't.

What argument is there for my point of view though? Because intelligent people will see liberty as preferable to bondage? And because informed people will understand that liberty allows people to speak, think, believe, behave differently than what others think proper? Because educated people understand that freedom allows the right to choose wrongly as well as rightly.

Once our rights are secured, if we do not have the right to form whatever sort of society we wish to have, we have no rights at all. And if we are going to cooperate and help each other build the society we want, the majority opinion must prevail.

Once you hand the power to the federal government to decide that for us, we have no rights, no liberty, no self determination whatsoever. We give the federal government ability to do anything to us it chooses to do.

 

[numan]

The Feds ride everybodies ass! They are too damn powerful!

All our rulers are too damn powerful -- not just government !!

The people who control transnational, totalitarian business monopolies, those who profit from the Military-Industrial Conspiracy, those who control the Great American Brainwashing Machine !!

I will begin to think of libertarians as other than front-men for mega-corporation crony-capitalists when they finally begin to address these other important issues.
.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You don't have to move. You can choose to stay and conform to the society your fellow local citizens have chosen even if some or all of that is not to your liking. And if it is too restrictive or unpleasant for your tastes you can move in with another group more to your liking.

But why should the majority design a society/community/way of life around what you want when you are very much out of step with the majority? Freedom allows people to design and have the sort of society they wish to have. And you give up none of your freedoms and liberties if you don't like what they choose and choose something different. You do give up your constitutionally protected liberties when you move to another country.

As IlarMeilyr said: Canada can tell you that you can't move there. New Jersey can't.

Why should the majority of the country conform to what you want?

If the majority of the country thinks I'm wrong, it shouldn't.

What argument is there for my point of view though? Because intelligent people will see liberty as preferable to bondage? And because informed people will understand that liberty allows people to speak, think, believe, behave differently than what others think proper? Because educated people understand that freedom allows the right to choose wrongly as well as rightly.

Once our rights are secured, if we do not have the right to form whatever sort of society we wish to have, we have no rights at all. And if we are going to cooperate and help each other build the society we want, the majority opinion must prevail.

Once you hand the power to the federal government to decide that for us, we have no rights, no liberty, no self determination whatsoever. We give the federal government ability to do anything to us it chooses to do.

So if 51% of population thinks you're wrong regarding the federal government's role in daily life, you're fine with that?

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should the majority of the country conform to what you want?

If the majority of the country thinks I'm wrong, it shouldn't.

What argument is there for my point of view though? Because intelligent people will see liberty as preferable to bondage? And because informed people will understand that liberty allows people to speak, think, believe, behave differently than what others think proper? Because educated people understand that freedom allows the right to choose wrongly as well as rightly.

Once our rights are secured, if we do not have the right to form whatever sort of society we wish to have, we have no rights at all. And if we are going to cooperate and help each other build the society we want, the majority opinion must prevail.

Once you hand the power to the federal government to decide that for us, we have no rights, no liberty, no self determination whatsoever. We give the federal government ability to do anything to us it chooses to do.

So if 51% of population thinks you're wrong regarding the federal government's role in daily life, you're fine with that?

You aren't hearing me. It isn't a matter of anything being fine with any individual. Freedom allows individuals to approve, disapprove, like, dislike, appreciate, loathe, etc. as they do. Freedom is never group think. But social contract for the mutual benefit of all, which is the ONLY logical way that local government happens, must of necessity be accomplished via majority vote.

It is the majority who will vote on whether to fund the bonds to pave the streets or put in street lights or establish a municiple water system, put in a sewer system, organize a volunteer fire department or establish a municiple one, whether to incorporate, whether to hire a mayor or elect a justice of the peace, etc. It would be a very foolish town who would decide things based on a 49% to 51% vote, however, but it is also an unrealistic expectation to require a unanimous vote for much of anything.

I can appreciate the individual or two who bought his property in the middle of nowhere and resents that other folks moved in around him to the point that he is now caught up in the dynamics of development. He wants to retain his excluded rural form of life, and that no longer becomes possible where he is. So he either has to adapt to the development, or move to a place more to his liking.

It is the same thing that happens to us who bought in quiet, sleepy little neighborhoods, but as the area grew and new schools and shopping centers and apartments built in, we then had to deal with the traffic and congestion that spoils it for us. So we adapt or we move.

None of us can expect to have things exactly like we want them if we choose to live where other people live. But we can still have our vote on what sort of society we wish to be. And we can still fight to not turn our liberties to a federal government that will then own them and we will have them no more.