What are libertarians?

[bripat9643]

This isn't heaven or a cartoon, numskull. This is reality

 

[rightwinger]

This isn't heaven or a cartoon, numskull. This is reality

That is Fingerboy in Heaven

 

[bripat9643]

This isn't heaven or a cartoon, numskull. This is reality

That is Fingerboy in Heaven

Did you have anything substantive to add to the discussion?

Cartoons seems to be about the best "logic" you can manage.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't have to benefit you as a person. It has to benefit society as a whole

Having a healthy population benefits society

LOL, which is why they wrote a Constitution to limit federal power, and in the Constitution gave it the power to do anything...

They give Congress the task to provide for the General Welfare

The powers enumerated in the Constitution define the general welfare.

Congress will determine the General Welfare

That is how things work now, but that is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. The powers enumerated in the Constitution are what they meant by "the general welfare."

If you think they have overstepped their bounds, you are free to take them to court. Many have and some have won

I'm free to pursue an utterly pointless and grossly expensive lawsuit that will be decided by a bunch of political hacks with a vested interest in the status quo?

Why didn't you just tell me to go pound sand?

Sucks being you Fingerboy

The more people of your ilk get your way, the more it sucks for everyone.

 

[rightwinger]

This isn't heaven or a cartoon, numskull. This is reality

That is Fingerboy in Heaven

Did you have anything substantive to add to the discussion?

Cartoons seems to be about the best "logic" you can manage.

That cartoon characterizes your outlook on life

It is worthy of derision....just like you

 

[Foxfyre]

It is always fascinating to me how ignorant so many are of the concepts embraced and promoted by the Founding Fathers. They dishonestly cherry pick comments from this or that--almost certainly copied and pasted from some pro-big-government, pro-progressive/liberal/statist/leftist/political class site--and hold them out as justification for progressivism/liberalis/statism/leftism/political class ideology.

But an honest and comprehensive study of the founding documents will show the Founding Fathers pretty much unified on what the 'general welfare' was intended to be. They saw the general welfare as that which benefits all citizens--rich and poor, landed and unlanded, young and old equally and without prejudice. They were almost universally unified that it was not within the prerogative of the federal government to use the people's money or resources to benefit any group, demographic, or special interest.

The purpose of the federal government was to facilitate the various states being able to function as one nation, to secure the unalienable rights of the people, to promote the general welfare, and to otherwise leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they chose. The general welfare was what promoted the ability of the people to live their lives, choose their own destinies (liberty) and pursue happiness according to what that meant to each individual

And there you have libertarianism (small "L") in a nutshell.

 

[gipper]

Can anyone (it seems Kaz has cut and run) define the phrase "general Welfare" as used in clause 1 of the 8th Sec. In Article I and to what it references.

If it does not refer to the citizens, to what does the phrase refer?

Let me give it a try and please let me know if you agree.

To people like you, the general welfare clause means:
Allowing a centralized government to develope a

It is always fascinating to me how ignorant so many are of the concepts embraced and promoted by the Founding Fathers. They dishonestly cherry pick comments from this or that--almost certainly copied and pasted from some pro-big-government, pro-progressive/liberal/statist/leftist/political class site--and hold them out as justification for progressivism/liberalis/statism/leftism/political class ideology.

But an honest and comprehensive study of the founding documents will show the Founding Fathers pretty much unified on what the 'general welfare' was intended to be. They saw the general welfare as that which benefits all citizens--rich and poor, landed and unlanded, young and old equally and without prejudice. They were almost universally unified that it was not within the prerogative of the federal government to use the people's money or resources to benefit any group, demographic, or special interest.

The purpose of the federal government was to facilitate the various states being able to function as one nation, to secure the unalienable rights of the people, to promote the general welfare, and to otherwise leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they chose. The general welfare was what promoted the ability of the people to live their lives, choose their own destinies (liberty) and pursue happiness according to what that meant to each individual

And there you have libertarianism (small "L") in a nutshell.

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

 

[Genevieve]

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

I am libertarian (not Libertarian) in that I don't want government legislating every little thing in our lives. I don't care how big government is (worker-wise) but I do not want it insinuating itself into my life telling me I can't drink soda or eat cookies or that I have to wear my seat belt or that I simply must wear a helmet if I ride a motorcycle.

Government should not legislate stupidity out of us. We should be allowed to be stupid if we want to do so.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is always fascinating to me how ignorant so many are of the concepts embraced and promoted by the Founding Fathers. They dishonestly cherry pick comments from this or that--almost certainly copied and pasted from some pro-big-government, pro-progressive/liberal/statist/leftist/political class site--and hold them out as justification for progressivism/liberalis/statism/leftism/political class ideology.

But an honest and comprehensive study of the founding documents will show the Founding Fathers pretty much unified on what the 'general welfare' was intended to be. They saw the general welfare as that which benefits all citizens--rich and poor, landed and unlanded, young and old equally and without prejudice. They were almost universally unified that it was not within the prerogative of the federal government to use the people's money or resources to benefit any group, demographic, or special interest.

The purpose of the federal government was to facilitate the various states being able to function as one nation, to secure the unalienable rights of the people, to promote the general welfare, and to otherwise leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they chose. The general welfare was what promoted the ability of the people to live their lives, choose their own destinies (liberty) and pursue happiness according to what that meant to each individual

And there you have libertarianism (small "L") in a nutshell.

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

I think it was a Scottish historian, Alexander Tytler, who gave us the theory of how a system like ours generally winds up if we are not ever diligent to know what liberty is and are not willing to fight to keep it. The cycle went something like this:

Bondage
Spiritual Faith
Courage
Liberty
Abundance
Selfishness
Complacency
Apathy
Dependence
Then starting over with Bondage

Currently we are at No. 9 'dependency' on that list. I believe this is the last generation that will have the ability to interrupt and reverse the cycle and keep us from returning to bondage.

 

[kaz]

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

 

[Pogo]

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

I am libertarian (not Libertarian) in that I don't want government legislating every little thing in our lives. I don't care how big government is (worker-wise) but I do not want it insinuating itself into my life telling me I can't drink soda or eat cookies or that I have to wear my seat belt or that I simply must wear a helmet if I ride a motorcycle.

Government should not legislate stupidity out of us. We should be allowed to be stupid if we want to do so.

Actually what you've described makes you a Liberal, resisting the influence of leftism.



The motorcycle helmet allusion always reminds me of what a Pensylvania legislator said debating such a bill:

"If you don't think it's worth fifty bucks to protect your head, you're probably right"

 

[Pogo]

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine?

 

[rightwinger]

It is always fascinating to me how ignorant so many are of the concepts embraced and promoted by the Founding Fathers. They dishonestly cherry pick comments from this or that--almost certainly copied and pasted from some pro-big-government, pro-progressive/liberal/statist/leftist/political class site--and hold them out as justification for progressivism/liberalis/statism/leftism/political class ideology.

But an honest and comprehensive study of the founding documents will show the Founding Fathers pretty much unified on what the 'general welfare' was intended to be. They saw the general welfare as that which benefits all citizens--rich and poor, landed and unlanded, young and old equally and without prejudice. They were almost universally unified that it was not within the prerogative of the federal government to use the people's money or resources to benefit any group, demographic, or special interest.

The purpose of the federal government was to facilitate the various states being able to function as one nation, to secure the unalienable rights of the people, to promote the general welfare, and to otherwise leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they chose. The general welfare was what promoted the ability of the people to live their lives, choose their own destinies (liberty) and pursue happiness according to what that meant to each individual

And there you have libertarianism (small "L") in a nutshell.

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

I think it was a Scottish historian, Alexander Tytler, who gave us the theory of how a system like ours generally winds up if we are not ever diligent to know what liberty is and are not willing to fight to keep it. The cycle went something like this:

Bondage
Spiritual Faith
Courage
Liberty
Abundance
Selfishness
Complacency
Apathy
Dependence
Then starting over with Bondage

Currently we are at No. 9 'dependency' on that list. I believe this is the last generation that will have the ability to interrupt and reverse the cycle and keep us from returning to bondage.

Bondage can be fun

 

[Foxfyre]

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

 

[Pogo]

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

 

[kaz]

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine?

Um...OK?

I didn't say the Founding Fathers were Marxists, that's been a big thing that liberals have been arguing. For example, Dad2three has been arguing Franklin thought all money belonged to the State. You need to read more before you comment on what you haven't been reading.

 

[kaz]

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You need to ask the people who are arguing that whether they think Marx actually inspired them or not. How am I supposed to know? They probably think the manifesto was inspired by the founding fathers. I keep telling them their view the Founding Fathers were Marxists is ridiculous. They were small government libertarians. The Constitution is almost exactly what I would write.

 

[kaz]

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

Exactly, seemed clear to me, and you got it.

 

[Pogo]

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.