Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Take it up with the founding fathers. It was their idea.
A great falsehood, Mustang, and you should be ashamed for libeling them in this manner.
So the Founders didn't argue for a limited Federal government with much of the power retained by the people and States?
So the Founders didn't argue for a limited Federal government with much of the power retained by the people and States?
Some did and some did not. However, what you describe is not a libertarian form of government.
Since it is your thesis, though, why don't you provide (1) a clear concise definition of libertarianism, (2) how libertarianism operates, and (3) how the Founders were consciously and conscientiously libertarian?
So the Founders established a Constitution that limited the Federal Government and retained much of the power by the people and the States, but all of them did not want that? Who exactly among them signed the Constitution and argued for it's ratification but didn't actually want it?
You are the one arguing that libertarianism isn't what the Founders were advocating. I think it's your burden to show what they were advocating.
Because humans are not perfect, a system of settling disputes must exist. Armed tribes where retribution or vendetta are practiced rarely create a peaceful and prosperous community. Tribes gave way to dictators and monarchs as man and society evolved. Then came Rome, and the notion of law. That a code of justice that is availible to all be established and posted.
This is the basis of civilization, laws that govern all. Governments are formed with the exclusive right to use force. In our case, we formed a government based on the input of the people governed. We entrust this government with the exclusive right to use force.
The left in this nation seeks to go back to kings and dictators. The anarchists seek to go back even further, to armed tribes.
The conservatives and Libertarians seek to maintain self-government and limit the power of government; realizing that government is like fire, a useful servant, but a force of unbridled destruction if not carefully contained.
Not the founders, it's the framers. There were anti-Federalists. They weren't arguing libertarianism, they were arguing over federalism...that is why they are called Federalists and anti-Federalists
Because humans are not perfect, a system of settling disputes must exist. Armed tribes where retribution or vendetta are practiced rarely create a peaceful and prosperous community. Tribes gave way to dictators and monarchs as man and society evolved. Then came Rome, and the notion of law. That a code of justice that is availible to all be established and posted.
This is the basis of civilization, laws that govern all. Governments are formed with the exclusive right to use force. In our case, we formed a government based on the input of the people governed. We entrust this government with the exclusive right to use force.
The left in this nation seeks to go back to kings and dictators. The anarchists seek to go back even further, to armed tribes.
The conservatives and Libertarians seek to maintain self-government and limit the power of government; realizing that government is like fire, a useful servant, but a force of unbridled destruction if not carefully contained.
I disagree with one point. Government does not have the exclusive right to use force. if they did, then the Second Amendment would be meaningless.
Because humans are not perfect, a system of settling disputes must exist. Armed tribes where retribution or vendetta are practiced rarely create a peaceful and prosperous community. Tribes gave way to dictators and monarchs as man and society evolved. Then came Rome, and the notion of law. That a code of justice that is availible to all be established and posted.
This is the basis of civilization, laws that govern all. Governments are formed with the exclusive right to use force. In our case, we formed a government based on the input of the people governed. We entrust this government with the exclusive right to use force.
The left in this nation seeks to go back to kings and dictators. The anarchists seek to go back even further, to armed tribes.
The conservatives and Libertarians seek to maintain self-government and limit the power of government; realizing that government is like fire, a useful servant, but a force of unbridled destruction if not carefully contained.
I disagree with one point. Government does not have the exclusive right to use force. if they did, then the Second Amendment would be meaningless.
Mustang and Avatar are taking notes, I trust.
duh . . . . righto!
Gee, that was easy.
Because humans are not perfect, a system of settling disputes must exist. Armed tribes where retribution or vendetta are practiced rarely create a peaceful and prosperous community. Tribes gave way to dictators and monarchs as man and society evolved. Then came Rome, and the notion of law. That a code of justice that is availible to all be established and posted.
This is the basis of civilization, laws that govern all. Governments are formed with the exclusive right to use force. In our case, we formed a government based on the input of the people governed. We entrust this government with the exclusive right to use force.
The left in this nation seeks to go back to kings and dictators. The anarchists seek to go back even further, to armed tribes.
The conservatives and Libertarians seek to maintain self-government and limit the power of government; realizing that government is like fire, a useful servant, but a force of unbridled destruction if not carefully contained.
I disagree with one point. Government does not have the exclusive right to use force. if they did, then the Second Amendment would be meaningless.
What you call a "consensus" is in fact majority rule.
back to school for a refresher course
in basic English reading and comprehension
How beautifully liberal!
What you call a "consensus" is in fact majority rule.
back to school for a refresher course
in basic English reading and comprehension
Really? Then you should have no trouble explaining the difference.
Our courts and our law are not those of "an army of commissars and apparatchiks."
You better than anyone else on the Board, Uncensored, embody the spirit of the communist commissar or apparatchik.
Fuck off, troll.
I feel it is quite unjust and immoral to force people at gunpoint to follow any agenda, no matter how well intentioned or successful it may or may not be.
That's what you imagine would be the worst thing to happen under Anarchy?
What do you imagine is the worst thing that would happen under anarchy?
people like you would be given free reign. When the lunatics run the asylum they always think things are better.
think the French Revolution versus the American Revolution.
Anarchy is only one step lower than direct democracy or more accurately, they both share the gutter
I feel it is quite unjust and immoral to force people at gunpoint to follow any agenda, no matter how well intentioned or successful it may or may not be.
What are you talking about?? What terrible thing did our president do now??
I disagree with one point. Government does not have the exclusive right to use force. if they did, then the Second Amendment would be meaningless.
What do you imagine is the worst thing that would happen under anarchy?
people like you would be given free reign. When the lunatics run the asylum they always think things are better.
think the French Revolution versus the American Revolution.
Anarchy is only one step lower than direct democracy or more accurately, they both share the gutter
The French revolution is not an example of anarchy. It's an example of democracy run amok. The claim that France didn't have government during the revolution doesn't pass the laugh test. What do you call the Committee of Public Safety if not government? Who was lopping off all those heads if not the government?
Oh the irony!
and the horror!
