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.
Libertarianism: someone please invent a time machine so we can go back to 1750.
LOL!Correct.Why of course....that is why we have courts
To protect the rights of the minority
No, that's why we have constitutional limits on the power of government.
Constitutional limits are meaningless without courts.
Not necessarily. They're meaningless without a solid consensus that they worth having. When we complain that Congress, or the President, or the Court have failed to follow the Constitution, it's mostly a reflection on a population that no longer understands its value.
Article III Section 2 of the Constitution places the authority to decide cases under the Constitution in the hands of the federal courts. It does not place that authority in the hands of the population. If a claim is made the Congress or President, or even a lower court, has failed to follow the Constitution the USSC is the body which makes the final determination. If we don't accept that, then we are not following the Constitution.
Articles III and VI authorize the doctrine of judicial review, the interpretive authority of the courts to determine what the Constitution means, and the Constitution's case law as the supreme law of the land; “and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
No we're not.The problem with libertarianism isn't with the philosophy, as much as the results. Encouraging more person to person dealings insures that without supervision more of the strong will inevitably prey on the weak. I don't find that to be a good idea for the long term stability of a civilization. It was tried before. We call it feudalism. A system in which someone doesn't look to government for protection, but a patron. We can't do everything for ourselves, as much as libertarians would like us believe it. Some will inevitably dominate. Without regulation, some will exploit their neighbors. That unfortunately is human nature and, like the Marxists, the libertarians seem to ignore the obvious on that score
Most things in life we are better off doing on our own. But other things can be better done as part of a collective society using Government to our advantage.
We are better off as part of a whole than as a bunch of individuals
We're better off as individuals who occasionally work together then part ways
A society is what led to civilization.
The strength of humankind is built on its ability to build strong societies. Economically, security, and socially
LOL!Correct.No, that's why we have constitutional limits on the power of government.
Constitutional limits are meaningless without courts.
Not necessarily. They're meaningless without a solid consensus that they worth having. When we complain that Congress, or the President, or the Court have failed to follow the Constitution, it's mostly a reflection on a population that no longer understands its value.
Article III Section 2 of the Constitution places the authority to decide cases under the Constitution in the hands of the federal courts. It does not place that authority in the hands of the population. If a claim is made the Congress or President, or even a lower court, has failed to follow the Constitution the USSC is the body which makes the final determination. If we don't accept that, then we are not following the Constitution.
Articles III and VI authorize the doctrine of judicial review, the interpretive authority of the courts to determine what the Constitution means, and the Constitution's case law as the supreme law of the land; “and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Judicial review is nowhere in the Constitution. The Court took the power for itself in Marbury v Madison.
Libs are so ignorant it hurts.
And understand what they read.LOL!Correct.Constitutional limits are meaningless without courts.
Not necessarily. They're meaningless without a solid consensus that they worth having. When we complain that Congress, or the President, or the Court have failed to follow the Constitution, it's mostly a reflection on a population that no longer understands its value.
Article III Section 2 of the Constitution places the authority to decide cases under the Constitution in the hands of the federal courts. It does not place that authority in the hands of the population. If a claim is made the Congress or President, or even a lower court, has failed to follow the Constitution the USSC is the body which makes the final determination. If we don't accept that, then we are not following the Constitution.
Articles III and VI authorize the doctrine of judicial review, the interpretive authority of the courts to determine what the Constitution means, and the Constitution's case law as the supreme law of the land; “and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Judicial review is nowhere in the Constitution. The Court took the power for itself in Marbury v Madison.
Libs are so ignorant it hurts.
It would be so nice if people who want to argue about the Constitution would, at some point in their life, actually read it.
No we're not.The problem with libertarianism isn't with the philosophy, as much as the results. Encouraging more person to person dealings insures that without supervision more of the strong will inevitably prey on the weak. I don't find that to be a good idea for the long term stability of a civilization. It was tried before. We call it feudalism. A system in which someone doesn't look to government for protection, but a patron. We can't do everything for ourselves, as much as libertarians would like us believe it. Some will inevitably dominate. Without regulation, some will exploit their neighbors. That unfortunately is human nature and, like the Marxists, the libertarians seem to ignore the obvious on that score
Most things in life we are better off doing on our own. But other things can be better done as part of a collective society using Government to our advantage.
We are better off as part of a whole than as a bunch of individuals
We're better off as individuals who occasionally work together then part ways
A society is what led to civilization.
The strength of humankind is built on its ability to build strong societies. Economically, security, and socially
And?
A society is nothing but individuals occasionally working together. It's not some sort of collective hive mind
An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?
"Just What is Libertarianism?"
It's Utopian reactionaryism, it's fear of change, it's a fantasy devoid of merit.
Why of course....that is why we have courts
To protect the rights of the minority
No, that's why we have constitutional limits on the power of government.
Constitutional limits are meaningless without courts.
Not necessarily. They're meaningless without a solid consensus that they worth having. When we complain that Congress, or the President, or the Court have failed to follow the Constitution, it's mostly a reflection on a population that no longer understands its value.
Article III Section 2 of the Constitution places the authority to decide cases under the Constitution in the hands of the federal courts. It does not place that authority in the hands of the population. If a claim is made the Congress or President, or even a lower court, has failed to follow the Constitution the USSC is the body which makes the final determination. If we don't accept that, then we are not following the Constitution.
Sure. I know. You're missing the point.
OK, after Pearl Harbor were we each expected to go it alone vs. the Japanese? For any question you can't or refuse to answer I'll have another.So you believe invading Iraq was something worthwhile to do?You were going invade Iraq alone?!?!There is nothing we are better off using government to accomplish.
No, that's why we have constitutional limits on the power of government.
Constitutional limits are meaningless without courts.
Not necessarily. They're meaningless without a solid consensus that they worth having. When we complain that Congress, or the President, or the Court have failed to follow the Constitution, it's mostly a reflection on a population that no longer understands its value.
Article III Section 2 of the Constitution places the authority to decide cases under the Constitution in the hands of the federal courts. It does not place that authority in the hands of the population. If a claim is made the Congress or President, or even a lower court, has failed to follow the Constitution the USSC is the body which makes the final determination. If we don't accept that, then we are not following the Constitution.
Sure. I know. You're missing the point.
I don't think I am missing the point. You are talking about following the Constitution. The Constitution is a framework for a working government, not a laundry list of individual freedoms. It exists for society as a whole. If it maximizes individual freedoms that is a nice plus, but not the ultimate goal.
No one is saying that libertarianism is perfect, but basing ones politics on freedom and liberty is a better way to do it.
That depends upon what one means by freedom and liberty. Neither of those things are free.
And no one would say that they are.
I woukd rather suffer the effects of too much Liberty and freedom than the effects of too little.
On the contrary. I have talked to any number of people who think they are. I think the reason you would suffer too much than too little is because you have never had to live with too much. For example, mine owners often created towns where their workers had to live, paid them in company script they could only spend at the company store and then proceeded to drive them so far into debt they were essentially slave labor. That was freedom - at least for the owners. Allowing a larger company to buy out all of the resources in order to cut off the supplies of any competitors was freedom. Selling poison as medicine was freedom.
I think the thing people forget is that government and business are not different. They are both populated by people who will act like people. To consider that business will act in an honest and public spirited manner if left to be free is just wishful thinking which has been proven to be wrong. Too much liberty results in oligarchy, not freedom. For a stable society which maximizes freedom for everyone requires a balancing between business and government.
Wow! That is quite a load of crap. I don't even know where to start. Let me just say that you are labor one under the common false belief that Libertarians are anarchists. Far from it.
I never said they were. I am pointing out the hazards of too much liberty and freedom. That was not a load of crap, that was history.
That depends upon what one means by freedom and liberty. Neither of those things are free.
And no one would say that they are.
I woukd rather suffer the effects of too much Liberty and freedom than the effects of too little.
On the contrary. I have talked to any number of people who think they are. I think the reason you would suffer too much than too little is because you have never had to live with too much. For example, mine owners often created towns where their workers had to live, paid them in company script they could only spend at the company store and then proceeded to drive them so far into debt they were essentially slave labor. That was freedom - at least for the owners. Allowing a larger company to buy out all of the resources in order to cut off the supplies of any competitors was freedom. Selling poison as medicine was freedom.
I think the thing people forget is that government and business are not different. They are both populated by people who will act like people. To consider that business will act in an honest and public spirited manner if left to be free is just wishful thinking which has been proven to be wrong. Too much liberty results in oligarchy, not freedom. For a stable society which maximizes freedom for everyone requires a balancing between business and government.
Wow! That is quite a load of crap. I don't even know where to start. Let me just say that you are labor one under the common false belief that Libertarians are anarchists. Far from it.
I never said they were. I am pointing out the hazards of too much liberty and freedom. That was not a load of crap, that was history.
Yes, that is what your post implies and no, it isn't unbiased factual history.
Constitutional limits are meaningless without courts.
Not necessarily. They're meaningless without a solid consensus that they worth having. When we complain that Congress, or the President, or the Court have failed to follow the Constitution, it's mostly a reflection on a population that no longer understands its value.
Article III Section 2 of the Constitution places the authority to decide cases under the Constitution in the hands of the federal courts. It does not place that authority in the hands of the population. If a claim is made the Congress or President, or even a lower court, has failed to follow the Constitution the USSC is the body which makes the final determination. If we don't accept that, then we are not following the Constitution.
Sure. I know. You're missing the point.
I don't think I am missing the point. You are talking about following the Constitution. The Constitution is a framework for a working government, not a laundry list of individual freedoms. It exists for society as a whole. If it maximizes individual freedoms that is a nice plus, but not the ultimate goal.
Well, my point was that keeping government in check, regardless of how it is accomplished, depends on a consensus that it's worth doing.
And no one would say that they are.
I woukd rather suffer the effects of too much Liberty and freedom than the effects of too little.
On the contrary. I have talked to any number of people who think they are. I think the reason you would suffer too much than too little is because you have never had to live with too much. For example, mine owners often created towns where their workers had to live, paid them in company script they could only spend at the company store and then proceeded to drive them so far into debt they were essentially slave labor. That was freedom - at least for the owners. Allowing a larger company to buy out all of the resources in order to cut off the supplies of any competitors was freedom. Selling poison as medicine was freedom.
I think the thing people forget is that government and business are not different. They are both populated by people who will act like people. To consider that business will act in an honest and public spirited manner if left to be free is just wishful thinking which has been proven to be wrong. Too much liberty results in oligarchy, not freedom. For a stable society which maximizes freedom for everyone requires a balancing between business and government.
Wow! That is quite a load of crap. I don't even know where to start. Let me just say that you are labor one under the common false belief that Libertarians are anarchists. Far from it.
I never said they were. I am pointing out the hazards of too much liberty and freedom. That was not a load of crap, that was history.
Yes, that is what your post implies and no, it isn't unbiased factual history.
Which part wasn't factual?
If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it
Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone
But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need
You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it
You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them
If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it
Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone
But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need
You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it
You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them
Opposition to these programs is merely a consistent application of "No harm, no foul". We think mutual support and communal welfare should be voluntary. We can care for our families, friends, neighbors and communities without passing laws that will, ultimately, send people to jail of they don't do as their told.
It's not that we don't need community programs to help the people who fall through the cracks, but they don't need to be run by government. The coercive aspect of government makes it something we should resort to reluctantly.
