Time for a third party?

[kaz]

I know, I said we were until you and your parasite allies took it over. The founding fathers were virtually identical to today's small government libertarians

I'm not an anarchist, moron

We were never governed by some nit-wit Libertarian philosophy. And, to be honest, our best years were after our forefathers died off so I'm not exactly sure you are aiming at making a good (though incorrect) point to begin with.

Yet you can't name differences between the founding fathers and modern libertarians, which should be easy if we are so different. Good luck with that

Once again, I didn't say you are an anarchist. I said that anarchy is a byproduct of libertarianism. Apparently you are unable to understand that sentence.

Again, unable to comprehend, I didn't say you said I'm an anarchist, I said you're arguing I'm one. You think I won't regulate pollution, that I support the rule of companies when I support the rule of choice and you're asking me about Somalia which has no central government, not a limited government. I'm not an anarchist, moron.

And I don't know what anarchy being a byproduct of libertarianism even means, but what does that have to do with me since I'm not an anarchist?

So, again, where are the great Utopian libertarian societes today? Where would John Galt plant his flag in 2016? Name 3 countries.

Why? We're number one with a bullet, that's what it's all about

You haven't established that the founding fathers were libertarian. It's your claim, you go first. In the meantime, name 3 flourishing libertarian countries. As a Libertarian I don't think you can.

Likely because of the fact that the Framers weren’t ‘libertarians.’

“The idea that our Founding Fathers envisioned a regime opposed to regulation and the protection of its citizens’ welfare from private actors, laughable to any serious historian, has nevertheless become the signature bromide of the libertarian vocabulary. The Constitution, it is often remarked, establishes a government of limited powers — an unobjectionable truth — but the fact that its powers are limited does not negate the mountain of evidence that those venerable lions who invented American democracy were far more concerned with corporate usurpations of freedom than by any threat posed by a government fairly elected by the people.”

The Founding Fathers Were Not Libertarians

Yeah but Kid Rock would have a problem with this.

You two need to get a room

 

[Alex.]

a third party will solve nothing. Work with what you have and make that work for you.

Why? Do you know Einstein's definition of insanity?

Yes...reading your post.

I know I was just being goofy with you.

Any work that supports our own goals is hard and sometimes does not come to fruition, but when it does that victory is sweet. Seems to me that if you have a gender issue, a PC agenda or just want to shove a bunch of social nonsense down the throats of others, in my experience, staying within your own party is the way to get things accomplished

The two party system gets worse and worse and the parties get more and more alike in what they actually do. Republicans spend more and more like Democrats and Obama's military policy is pure W just like Clinton's was. What makes you think that is going to suddenly change? Hence my Einstein question ...

It will never "suddenly change", however, if we want change we can effectuate that change within the system

 

[HappyJoy]

I know, I said we were until you and your parasite allies took it over. The founding fathers were virtually identical to today's small government libertarians

I'm not an anarchist, moron

We were never governed by some nit-wit Libertarian philosophy. And, to be honest, our best years were after our forefathers died off so I'm not exactly sure you are aiming at making a good (though incorrect) point to begin with.

Yet you can't name differences between the founding fathers and modern libertarians, which should be easy if we are so different. Good luck with that

Once again, I didn't say you are an anarchist. I said that anarchy is a byproduct of libertarianism. Apparently you are unable to understand that sentence.

Again, unable to comprehend, I didn't say you said I'm an anarchist, I said you're arguing I'm one. You think I won't regulate pollution, that I support the rule of companies when I support the rule of choice and you're asking me about Somalia which has no central government, not a limited government. I'm not an anarchist, moron.

And I don't know what anarchy being a byproduct of libertarianism even means, but what does that have to do with me since I'm not an anarchist?

So, again, where are the great Utopian libertarian societes today? Where would John Galt plant his flag in 2016? Name 3 countries.

Why? We're number one with a bullet, that's what it's all about

You haven't established that the founding fathers were libertarian. It's your claim, you go first. In the meantime, name 3 flourishing libertarian countries. As a Libertarian I don't think you can.

Likely because of the fact that the Framers weren’t ‘libertarians.’

“The idea that our Founding Fathers envisioned a regime opposed to regulation and the protection of its citizens’ welfare from private actors, laughable to any serious historian, has nevertheless become the signature bromide of the libertarian vocabulary. The Constitution, it is often remarked, establishes a government of limited powers — an unobjectionable truth — but the fact that its powers are limited does not negate the mountain of evidence that those venerable lions who invented American democracy were far more concerned with corporate usurpations of freedom than by any threat posed by a government fairly elected by the people.”

The Founding Fathers Were Not Libertarians

I'm not an anarchist, moron.

It's funny how you and the puffington post have to keep basing your argument on sweeping statements and your opinion of our views.

Point to specific points in the Constitution that are not SMALL GOVERNMENT libertarian. And cut the anarchy crap, I'm not an anarchist, moron

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't get all anarchy and shit.

 

[kaz]

I know, I said we were until you and your parasite allies took it over. The founding fathers were virtually identical to today's small government libertarians

I'm not an anarchist, moron

We were never governed by some nit-wit Libertarian philosophy. And, to be honest, our best years were after our forefathers died off so I'm not exactly sure you are aiming at making a good (though incorrect) point to begin with.

Yet you can't name differences between the founding fathers and modern libertarians, which should be easy if we are so different. Good luck with that

Once again, I didn't say you are an anarchist. I said that anarchy is a byproduct of libertarianism. Apparently you are unable to understand that sentence.

Again, unable to comprehend, I didn't say you said I'm an anarchist, I said you're arguing I'm one. You think I won't regulate pollution, that I support the rule of companies when I support the rule of choice and you're asking me about Somalia which has no central government, not a limited government. I'm not an anarchist, moron.

And I don't know what anarchy being a byproduct of libertarianism even means, but what does that have to do with me since I'm not an anarchist?

So, again, where are the great Utopian libertarian societes today? Where would John Galt plant his flag in 2016? Name 3 countries.

Why? We're number one with a bullet, that's what it's all about

You haven't established that the founding fathers were libertarian. It's your claim, you go first. In the meantime, name 3 flourishing libertarian countries. As a Libertarian I don't think you can.

How do I know the founding fathers were what we call libertarian today? Easy. Here you go:

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

It's funny how it's so clear to you they weren't and yet you can't think of anything. Well, you thought of one, but it turned out you were wrong ...

I see, you're answer is simply "read the constitution". That's not good enough and Clay already posted a good article on why the founding fathers were not libertarians. You can get busy refuting that anytime now.

Obviously you're just making it up since you can't rattle anything off that contradicts my statement the document is small government libertarian. And everything they wrote in their private papers was about limiting the size and power of the Federal government. You'd be glad to prove me wrong if you could, but you can't. So instead of listing a few things devastating to my argument, since you can't do that, you just say go through the document line by line and prove every statement is libertarian.

You're an intellectual light weight and transparently obvious. I accept your concession that you can't find anything contradictory to modern libertarianism

 

[kaz]

Why? Do you know Einstein's definition of insanity?

Yes...reading your post.

I know I was just being goofy with you.

Any work that supports our own goals is hard and sometimes does not come to fruition, but when it does that victory is sweet. Seems to me that if you have a gender issue, a PC agenda or just want to shove a bunch of social nonsense down the throats of others, in my experience, staying within your own party is the way to get things accomplished

The two party system gets worse and worse and the parties get more and more alike in what they actually do. Republicans spend more and more like Democrats and Obama's military policy is pure W just like Clinton's was. What makes you think that is going to suddenly change? Hence my Einstein question ...

It will never "suddenly change", however, if we want change we can effectuate that change within the system

And why would the same strategy Americans have tried for over a hundred years suddenly yield a different result after all this time?

 

[kaz]

We were never governed by some nit-wit Libertarian philosophy. And, to be honest, our best years were after our forefathers died off so I'm not exactly sure you are aiming at making a good (though incorrect) point to begin with.

Yet you can't name differences between the founding fathers and modern libertarians, which should be easy if we are so different. Good luck with that

Once again, I didn't say you are an anarchist. I said that anarchy is a byproduct of libertarianism. Apparently you are unable to understand that sentence.

Again, unable to comprehend, I didn't say you said I'm an anarchist, I said you're arguing I'm one. You think I won't regulate pollution, that I support the rule of companies when I support the rule of choice and you're asking me about Somalia which has no central government, not a limited government. I'm not an anarchist, moron.

And I don't know what anarchy being a byproduct of libertarianism even means, but what does that have to do with me since I'm not an anarchist?

So, again, where are the great Utopian libertarian societes today? Where would John Galt plant his flag in 2016? Name 3 countries.

Why? We're number one with a bullet, that's what it's all about

You haven't established that the founding fathers were libertarian. It's your claim, you go first. In the meantime, name 3 flourishing libertarian countries. As a Libertarian I don't think you can.

Likely because of the fact that the Framers weren’t ‘libertarians.’

“The idea that our Founding Fathers envisioned a regime opposed to regulation and the protection of its citizens’ welfare from private actors, laughable to any serious historian, has nevertheless become the signature bromide of the libertarian vocabulary. The Constitution, it is often remarked, establishes a government of limited powers — an unobjectionable truth — but the fact that its powers are limited does not negate the mountain of evidence that those venerable lions who invented American democracy were far more concerned with corporate usurpations of freedom than by any threat posed by a government fairly elected by the people.”

The Founding Fathers Were Not Libertarians

I'm not an anarchist, moron.

It's funny how you and the puffington post have to keep basing your argument on sweeping statements and your opinion of our views.

Point to specific points in the Constitution that are not SMALL GOVERNMENT libertarian. And cut the anarchy crap, I'm not an anarchist, moron

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't get all anarchy and shit.

You strike out more often than a lounge lizard

 

[HappyJoy]

We were never governed by some nit-wit Libertarian philosophy. And, to be honest, our best years were after our forefathers died off so I'm not exactly sure you are aiming at making a good (though incorrect) point to begin with.

Yet you can't name differences between the founding fathers and modern libertarians, which should be easy if we are so different. Good luck with that

Once again, I didn't say you are an anarchist. I said that anarchy is a byproduct of libertarianism. Apparently you are unable to understand that sentence.

Again, unable to comprehend, I didn't say you said I'm an anarchist, I said you're arguing I'm one. You think I won't regulate pollution, that I support the rule of companies when I support the rule of choice and you're asking me about Somalia which has no central government, not a limited government. I'm not an anarchist, moron.

And I don't know what anarchy being a byproduct of libertarianism even means, but what does that have to do with me since I'm not an anarchist?

So, again, where are the great Utopian libertarian societes today? Where would John Galt plant his flag in 2016? Name 3 countries.

Why? We're number one with a bullet, that's what it's all about

You haven't established that the founding fathers were libertarian. It's your claim, you go first. In the meantime, name 3 flourishing libertarian countries. As a Libertarian I don't think you can.

How do I know the founding fathers were what we call libertarian today? Easy. Here you go:

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

It's funny how it's so clear to you they weren't and yet you can't think of anything. Well, you thought of one, but it turned out you were wrong ...

I see, you're answer is simply "read the constitution". That's not good enough and Clay already posted a good article on why the founding fathers were not libertarians. You can get busy refuting that anytime now.

Obviously you're just making it up since you can't rattle anything off that contradicts my statement the document is small government libertarian. And everything they wrote in their private papers was about limiting the size and power of the Federal government. You'd be glad to prove me wrong if you could, but you can't. So instead of listing a few things devastating to my argument, since you can't do that, you just say go through the document line by line and prove every statement is libertarian.

You're an intellectual light weight and transparently obvious. I accept your concession that you can't find anything contradictory to modern libertarianism

Is that a Libertarian is "small government"? Might as well be a Republican.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yet you can't name differences between the founding fathers and modern libertarians, which should be easy if we are so different. Good luck with that

Again, unable to comprehend, I didn't say you said I'm an anarchist, I said you're arguing I'm one. You think I won't regulate pollution, that I support the rule of companies when I support the rule of choice and you're asking me about Somalia which has no central government, not a limited government. I'm not an anarchist, moron.

And I don't know what anarchy being a byproduct of libertarianism even means, but what does that have to do with me since I'm not an anarchist?

Why? We're number one with a bullet, that's what it's all about

You haven't established that the founding fathers were libertarian. It's your claim, you go first. In the meantime, name 3 flourishing libertarian countries. As a Libertarian I don't think you can.

Likely because of the fact that the Framers weren’t ‘libertarians.’

“The idea that our Founding Fathers envisioned a regime opposed to regulation and the protection of its citizens’ welfare from private actors, laughable to any serious historian, has nevertheless become the signature bromide of the libertarian vocabulary. The Constitution, it is often remarked, establishes a government of limited powers — an unobjectionable truth — but the fact that its powers are limited does not negate the mountain of evidence that those venerable lions who invented American democracy were far more concerned with corporate usurpations of freedom than by any threat posed by a government fairly elected by the people.”

The Founding Fathers Were Not Libertarians

I'm not an anarchist, moron.

It's funny how you and the puffington post have to keep basing your argument on sweeping statements and your opinion of our views.

Point to specific points in the Constitution that are not SMALL GOVERNMENT libertarian. And cut the anarchy crap, I'm not an anarchist, moron

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't get all anarchy and shit.

You strike out more often than a lounge lizard

That's not even a thing.

 

[kaz]

Yet you can't name differences between the founding fathers and modern libertarians, which should be easy if we are so different. Good luck with that

Again, unable to comprehend, I didn't say you said I'm an anarchist, I said you're arguing I'm one. You think I won't regulate pollution, that I support the rule of companies when I support the rule of choice and you're asking me about Somalia which has no central government, not a limited government. I'm not an anarchist, moron.

And I don't know what anarchy being a byproduct of libertarianism even means, but what does that have to do with me since I'm not an anarchist?

Why? We're number one with a bullet, that's what it's all about

You haven't established that the founding fathers were libertarian. It's your claim, you go first. In the meantime, name 3 flourishing libertarian countries. As a Libertarian I don't think you can.

How do I know the founding fathers were what we call libertarian today? Easy. Here you go:

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

It's funny how it's so clear to you they weren't and yet you can't think of anything. Well, you thought of one, but it turned out you were wrong ...

I see, you're answer is simply "read the constitution". That's not good enough and Clay already posted a good article on why the founding fathers were not libertarians. You can get busy refuting that anytime now.

Obviously you're just making it up since you can't rattle anything off that contradicts my statement the document is small government libertarian. And everything they wrote in their private papers was about limiting the size and power of the Federal government. You'd be glad to prove me wrong if you could, but you can't. So instead of listing a few things devastating to my argument, since you can't do that, you just say go through the document line by line and prove every statement is libertarian.

You're an intellectual light weight and transparently obvious. I accept your concession that you can't find anything contradictory to modern libertarianism

Is that a Libertarian is "small government"? Might as well be a Republican.

You think Republicans are "small government?" You're even dumber than I thought you were. I didn't think that was possible. You have mastered eight year old though. How many decades did that take you?

 

[HappyJoy]

And yes, I'm expending the least amount of energy on this.

The Washington Monthly

THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution. Today's far-right activists, we're told, are the ideological descendents of the Founding Fathers.

Indeed, in Christopher Beam's widely noted piece this month, we're told, "The Constitution was a libertarian document that limited the role of the state to society's most basic needs, like a legislature to pass laws, a court system to interpret them, and a military to protect them."

This is certainly a welcome characterization for those who prefer to believe most of the progressive bedrocks of modern American society -- Social Security, Medicare, etc. -- are not only unconstitutional, but are wholly at odds with the vision of limited government established by the framers.

The problem, of course, is that the framers weren't libertarians. John Vecchione had a good piece on this the other day.

George Washington belonged to the Established Church (Episcopalian) of the State of Virginia; he also was the chief vindicator of national power in the new republic. Thomas Jefferson determined to wage war by simply denying foreigners the right to trade with the U.S. So did Madison. What libertarian has ever thought the government could cut off trade between free individuals?

Further, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine supported the French Revolution. That revolution denied there was anything the state could not do in the name of the people. Jefferson never repudiated his support for that tyranny and Thomas Paine was only slightly more dismissive even after it nearly killed him. [...]

The Founders believed in carefully delineated federal powers either broad (Hamilton) or limited (Jefferson, sometimes) but all believed in a more powerful state than libertarians purport to believe in. If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.





Jon Chait noted a recent piece from historian Gordon Wood that touches on this, emphasizing the similarities between the debates of the framers and those of today. "The great irony, of course, is that the Anti-Federalist ancestors of the Tea Partiers opposed the Constitution rather than revered it," Wood explained.

And this, too, speaks to a larger truth. As Ezra Klein noted yesterday, "In reality, the tea party -- like most everyone else -- is less interested in living by the Constitution than in deciding what it means to live by the Constitution." Or as Matt Yglesias added this morning, "The field of constitutional law has always featured a great deal of what's known as 'motivated belief' where people look at the document and tend to see it as supporting their preexisting policy conclusions."

The same is true of the nation's founders, and the drive on the right to convince themselves that they think as the framers did, which somehow gives contemporary conservatism a weighty, historical legacy, and a strong foundation from which to attack the modern welfare state.

This might be more compelling if it weren't transparent nonsense.

 

[kaz]

You haven't established that the founding fathers were libertarian. It's your claim, you go first. In the meantime, name 3 flourishing libertarian countries. As a Libertarian I don't think you can.

Likely because of the fact that the Framers weren’t ‘libertarians.’

“The idea that our Founding Fathers envisioned a regime opposed to regulation and the protection of its citizens’ welfare from private actors, laughable to any serious historian, has nevertheless become the signature bromide of the libertarian vocabulary. The Constitution, it is often remarked, establishes a government of limited powers — an unobjectionable truth — but the fact that its powers are limited does not negate the mountain of evidence that those venerable lions who invented American democracy were far more concerned with corporate usurpations of freedom than by any threat posed by a government fairly elected by the people.”

The Founding Fathers Were Not Libertarians

I'm not an anarchist, moron.

It's funny how you and the puffington post have to keep basing your argument on sweeping statements and your opinion of our views.

Point to specific points in the Constitution that are not SMALL GOVERNMENT libertarian. And cut the anarchy crap, I'm not an anarchist, moron

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't get all anarchy and shit.

You strike out more often than a lounge lizard

That's not even a thing.

You know you're on the Internet, right? You can Google terms you don't know?

 

[Contumacious]

Whole lotta people don't like the libertarian party.

The Demopublicans offers fascism. Now Comrade Sanders is willing to provide socialism


If Libertarians who seek 100 % freedom is not an option then the Demopublicans are your choice,

 

[kaz]

And yes, I'm expending the least amount of energy on this.

The Washington Monthly

THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution. Today's far-right activists, we're told, are the ideological descendents of the Founding Fathers.

Indeed, in Christopher Beam's widely noted piece this month, we're told, "The Constitution was a libertarian document that limited the role of the state to society's most basic needs, like a legislature to pass laws, a court system to interpret them, and a military to protect them."

This is certainly a welcome characterization for those who prefer to believe most of the progressive bedrocks of modern American society -- Social Security, Medicare, etc. -- are not only unconstitutional, but are wholly at odds with the vision of limited government established by the framers.

The problem, of course, is that the framers weren't libertarians. John Vecchione had a good piece on this the other day.

George Washington belonged to the Established Church (Episcopalian) of the State of Virginia; he also was the chief vindicator of national power in the new republic. Thomas Jefferson determined to wage war by simply denying foreigners the right to trade with the U.S. So did Madison. What libertarian has ever thought the government could cut off trade between free individuals?

Further, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine supported the French Revolution. That revolution denied there was anything the state could not do in the name of the people. Jefferson never repudiated his support for that tyranny and Thomas Paine was only slightly more dismissive even after it nearly killed him. [...]

The Founders believed in carefully delineated federal powers either broad (Hamilton) or limited (Jefferson, sometimes) but all believed in a more powerful state than libertarians purport to believe in. If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.





Jon Chait noted a recent piece from historian Gordon Wood that touches on this, emphasizing the similarities between the debates of the framers and those of today. "The great irony, of course, is that the Anti-Federalist ancestors of the Tea Partiers opposed the Constitution rather than revered it," Wood explained.

And this, too, speaks to a larger truth. As Ezra Klein noted yesterday, "In reality, the tea party -- like most everyone else -- is less interested in living by the Constitution than in deciding what it means to live by the Constitution." Or as Matt Yglesias added this morning, "The field of constitutional law has always featured a great deal of what's known as 'motivated belief' where people look at the document and tend to see it as supporting their preexisting policy conclusions."

The same is true of the nation's founders, and the drive on the right to convince themselves that they think as the framers did, which somehow gives contemporary conservatism a weighty, historical legacy, and a strong foundation from which to attack the modern welfare state.

This might be more compelling if it weren't transparent nonsense.

We aren't anarchists, moron. This again is only sweeping claims, it points to zero in the Constitution that a small government libertarian would oppose

 

[HappyJoy]

Likely because of the fact that the Framers weren’t ‘libertarians.’

“The idea that our Founding Fathers envisioned a regime opposed to regulation and the protection of its citizens’ welfare from private actors, laughable to any serious historian, has nevertheless become the signature bromide of the libertarian vocabulary. The Constitution, it is often remarked, establishes a government of limited powers — an unobjectionable truth — but the fact that its powers are limited does not negate the mountain of evidence that those venerable lions who invented American democracy were far more concerned with corporate usurpations of freedom than by any threat posed by a government fairly elected by the people.”

The Founding Fathers Were Not Libertarians

I'm not an anarchist, moron.

It's funny how you and the puffington post have to keep basing your argument on sweeping statements and your opinion of our views.

Point to specific points in the Constitution that are not SMALL GOVERNMENT libertarian. And cut the anarchy crap, I'm not an anarchist, moron

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't get all anarchy and shit.

You strike out more often than a lounge lizard

That's not even a thing.

You know you're on the Internet, right? You can Google terms you don't know?

Yep, it's not a popular phrase to say the least.

 

[HappyJoy]

And yes, I'm expending the least amount of energy on this.

The Washington Monthly

THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution. Today's far-right activists, we're told, are the ideological descendents of the Founding Fathers.

Indeed, in Christopher Beam's widely noted piece this month, we're told, "The Constitution was a libertarian document that limited the role of the state to society's most basic needs, like a legislature to pass laws, a court system to interpret them, and a military to protect them."

This is certainly a welcome characterization for those who prefer to believe most of the progressive bedrocks of modern American society -- Social Security, Medicare, etc. -- are not only unconstitutional, but are wholly at odds with the vision of limited government established by the framers.

The problem, of course, is that the framers weren't libertarians. John Vecchione had a good piece on this the other day.

George Washington belonged to the Established Church (Episcopalian) of the State of Virginia; he also was the chief vindicator of national power in the new republic. Thomas Jefferson determined to wage war by simply denying foreigners the right to trade with the U.S. So did Madison. What libertarian has ever thought the government could cut off trade between free individuals?

Further, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine supported the French Revolution. That revolution denied there was anything the state could not do in the name of the people. Jefferson never repudiated his support for that tyranny and Thomas Paine was only slightly more dismissive even after it nearly killed him. [...]

The Founders believed in carefully delineated federal powers either broad (Hamilton) or limited (Jefferson, sometimes) but all believed in a more powerful state than libertarians purport to believe in. If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.





Jon Chait noted a recent piece from historian Gordon Wood that touches on this, emphasizing the similarities between the debates of the framers and those of today. "The great irony, of course, is that the Anti-Federalist ancestors of the Tea Partiers opposed the Constitution rather than revered it," Wood explained.

And this, too, speaks to a larger truth. As Ezra Klein noted yesterday, "In reality, the tea party -- like most everyone else -- is less interested in living by the Constitution than in deciding what it means to live by the Constitution." Or as Matt Yglesias added this morning, "The field of constitutional law has always featured a great deal of what's known as 'motivated belief' where people look at the document and tend to see it as supporting their preexisting policy conclusions."

The same is true of the nation's founders, and the drive on the right to convince themselves that they think as the framers did, which somehow gives contemporary conservatism a weighty, historical legacy, and a strong foundation from which to attack the modern welfare state.

This might be more compelling if it weren't transparent nonsense.

We aren't anarchists, moron. This again is only sweeping claims, it points to zero in the Constitution that a small government libertarian would oppose

That's two articles you have been unable to refute. You sound like an anarchist.

 

[kaz]

And yes, I'm expending the least amount of energy on this.

The Washington Monthly

THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution. Today's far-right activists, we're told, are the ideological descendents of the Founding Fathers.

Indeed, in Christopher Beam's widely noted piece this month, we're told, "The Constitution was a libertarian document that limited the role of the state to society's most basic needs, like a legislature to pass laws, a court system to interpret them, and a military to protect them."

This is certainly a welcome characterization for those who prefer to believe most of the progressive bedrocks of modern American society -- Social Security, Medicare, etc. -- are not only unconstitutional, but are wholly at odds with the vision of limited government established by the framers.

The problem, of course, is that the framers weren't libertarians. John Vecchione had a good piece on this the other day.

George Washington belonged to the Established Church (Episcopalian) of the State of Virginia; he also was the chief vindicator of national power in the new republic. Thomas Jefferson determined to wage war by simply denying foreigners the right to trade with the U.S. So did Madison. What libertarian has ever thought the government could cut off trade between free individuals?

Further, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine supported the French Revolution. That revolution denied there was anything the state could not do in the name of the people. Jefferson never repudiated his support for that tyranny and Thomas Paine was only slightly more dismissive even after it nearly killed him. [...]

The Founders believed in carefully delineated federal powers either broad (Hamilton) or limited (Jefferson, sometimes) but all believed in a more powerful state than libertarians purport to believe in. If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.





Jon Chait noted a recent piece from historian Gordon Wood that touches on this, emphasizing the similarities between the debates of the framers and those of today. "The great irony, of course, is that the Anti-Federalist ancestors of the Tea Partiers opposed the Constitution rather than revered it," Wood explained.

And this, too, speaks to a larger truth. As Ezra Klein noted yesterday, "In reality, the tea party -- like most everyone else -- is less interested in living by the Constitution than in deciding what it means to live by the Constitution." Or as Matt Yglesias added this morning, "The field of constitutional law has always featured a great deal of what's known as 'motivated belief' where people look at the document and tend to see it as supporting their preexisting policy conclusions."

The same is true of the nation's founders, and the drive on the right to convince themselves that they think as the framers did, which somehow gives contemporary conservatism a weighty, historical legacy, and a strong foundation from which to attack the modern welfare state.

This might be more compelling if it weren't transparent nonsense.

We aren't anarchists, moron. This again is only sweeping claims, it points to zero in the Constitution that a small government libertarian would oppose

That's two articles you have been unable to refute. You sound like an anarchist.

 

[Alex.]

Yes...reading your post.

I know I was just being goofy with you.

Any work that supports our own goals is hard and sometimes does not come to fruition, but when it does that victory is sweet. Seems to me that if you have a gender issue, a PC agenda or just want to shove a bunch of social nonsense down the throats of others, in my experience, staying within your own party is the way to get things accomplished

The two party system gets worse and worse and the parties get more and more alike in what they actually do. Republicans spend more and more like Democrats and Obama's military policy is pure W just like Clinton's was. What makes you think that is going to suddenly change? Hence my Einstein question ...

It will never "suddenly change", however, if we want change we can effectuate that change within the system

And why would the same strategy Americans have tried for over a hundred years suddenly yield a different result after all this time?

times change, things change different circumstances

 

[Disir]

Whole lotta people don't like the libertarian party.

The Demopublicans offers fascism. Now Comrade Sanders is willing to provide socialism


If Libertarians who seek 100 % freedom is not an option then the Demopublicans are your choice,

No. The libertarian party humps the legs of whatever party will take them because when you look at them...........they're bat shit crazy. It isn't Libertarians are the only other option. Five percent threshhold and these fuckers will be playing the same game.

 

[Divine Wind]

The poll below shows many Americans, like myself, feel that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent our interests. Is it time for a third party? I say yes....and so do many other Americans.

They say that, but come Election Day most of those people will still choose R or D because Americans are lemmings following each other off a cliff.

Most will, but do you think this election will set records for voter turnout or be closer to one of the lowest turnouts? Either way, why?

 

[Contumacious]

Whole lotta people don't like the libertarian party.

The Demopublicans offers fascism. Now Comrade Sanders is willing to provide socialism


If Libertarians who seek 100 % freedom is not an option then the Demopublicans are your choice,

No. The libertarian party humps the legs of whatever party will take them because when you look at them...........they're bat shit crazy. It isn't Libertarians are the only other option. Five percent threshhold and these fuckers will be playing the same game.

I know that you speak in Orwellian double talk . So bat'shit crazy means the opposite. You come up with these conclusions without identifying any facts.

.