What are libertarians?

[dblack]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us.

We did. That's what the Constitution is all about. And we can change it if we want.

 

[rightwinger]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us.

We did. That's what the Constitution is all about. And we can change it if we want.

We don't have to

The Constitution sets a broad framework of governance that we all live to. Each generation gets to decide what they want from their government

Thomas Jefferson said it best..

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

 

[dblack]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us.

We did. That's what the Constitution is all about. And we can change it if we want.

We don't have to

The Constitution sets a broad framework of governance that we all live to. Eac generation gets to decide what they want from their government

Stow the equivocation. Not in the mood for games this morning. Changing what we want government to be responsible for requires changing the Constitution, a process which was deliberately designed to require a broad consensus, and not a temporary majority. There's a lot of wisdom in that design (if we follow it), as it keeps us from thrashing back and forth with frequent change. And as we've depleted the power of the Constitution to constrain government, our politics have done just that, becoming ever more partisan, divisive and counter-productive.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.

Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.

I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I came to discern what the difference might be between "libertarian" and "liberal", which is apparently that the latter is a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age faggot".

Nice people, these "libertarians". Nice place to visit but I don't wanna live there.

The difference between a minarchist libertarian, as kaz laid out in his original post, and a modern day liberal is that while the libertarian sees an expressly limited role for the state, the liberal seeks to expand the powers of the state to include the role of creating a more egalitarian society. Many modern liberals today also see a role for the state in foreign adventurism. Libya, Iraq, and Syria, for example.

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

With no limits on their power to do "that which needs doing," as decided by politicians.

No...

We the people limit their power through the vote. Been working for hundreds of years

Amounts to the same thing.

 

[rightwinger]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us.

We did. That's what the Constitution is all about. And we can change it if we want.

We don't have to

The Constitution sets a broad framework of governance that we all live to. Eac generation gets to decide what they want from their government

Stow the equivocation. Not in the mood for games this morning. Changing what we want government to be responsible for requires changing the Constitution, a process which was deliberately designed to require a broad consensus, and not a temporary majority. There's a lot of wisdom in that design (if we follow it), as it keeps us from thrashing back and forth with frequent change. And as we've depleted the power of the Constitution to constrain government, our politics have done just that, becoming ever more partisan, divisive and counter-productive.

There is no need to change the Constitution every time a new generation of Americans requires more modern programs to meet their needs. Never has been in 225 years

 

[dblack]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us.

We did. That's what the Constitution is all about. And we can change it if we want.

We don't have to

The Constitution sets a broad framework of governance that we all live to. Eac generation gets to decide what they want from their government

Stow the equivocation. Not in the mood for games this morning. Changing what we want government to be responsible for requires changing the Constitution, a process which was deliberately designed to require a broad consensus, and not a temporary majority. There's a lot of wisdom in that design (if we follow it), as it keeps us from thrashing back and forth with frequent change. And as we've depleted the power of the Constitution to constrain government, our politics have done just that, becoming ever more partisan, divisive and counter-productive.

There is no need to change the Constitution every time a new generation of Americans requires more modern programs to meet their needs. Never has been in 225 years

No, I suppose not. We can simply ignore it. But at what cost?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us.

We did. That's what the Constitution is all about. And we can change it if we want.

We don't have to

The Constitution sets a broad framework of governance that we all live to. Each generation gets to decide what they want from their government

Thomas Jefferson said it best..

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

If we don't have to change the Constitution, then what is the purpose of the amendment process? And if it's the case that the Constitution sets such a broad framework that it can change meanings completely, where was this sold to the ratifying conventions? Who made this argument at the time of ratification? Since the answer is nobody, how can that be true?

 

[gipper]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us.

We did. That's what the Constitution is all about. And we can change it if we want.

We don't have to

The Constitution sets a broad framework of governance that we all live to. Each generation gets to decide what they want from their government

Thomas Jefferson said it best..

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

The Constitution is regularly ignored. Most politicians and our government are not constrained by it and will do as they wish.

So, the Constitution has become nothing more than a piece of paper.

 

[rightwinger]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us.

We did. That's what the Constitution is all about. And we can change it if we want.

We don't have to

The Constitution sets a broad framework of governance that we all live to. Each generation gets to decide what they want from their government

Thomas Jefferson said it best..

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

The Constitution is regularly ignored. Most politicians and our government are not constrained by it and will do as they wish.

So, the Constitution has become nothing more than a piece of paper.

Our great Constitution has established an entire branch of government ( The Judicial Branch....you can look it up) to ensure that the Constitution is not ignored

 

[gipper]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us.

We did. That's what the Constitution is all about. And we can change it if we want.

We don't have to

The Constitution sets a broad framework of governance that we all live to. Each generation gets to decide what they want from their government

Thomas Jefferson said it best..

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

The Constitution is regularly ignored. Most politicians and our government are not constrained by it and will do as they wish.

So, the Constitution has become nothing more than a piece of paper.

Our great Constitution has established an entire branch of government ( The Judicial Branch....you can look it up) to ensure that the Constitution is not ignored

More foolishness from you.

If you actually knew what the Constitution allows, you would know the out of control federal government we have today, is not one iota constrained by it.

Actually you much prefer to allow evil politicians and government bureaucrats to do as they wish. How else would we end up with the socialist/corporatist/fascist welfare/warfare police state we have today. It is a leftist paradise.

 

[dblack]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us.

We did. That's what the Constitution is all about. And we can change it if we want.

We don't have to

The Constitution sets a broad framework of governance that we all live to. Each generation gets to decide what they want from their government

Thomas Jefferson said it best..

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

The Constitution is regularly ignored. Most politicians and our government are not constrained by it and will do as they wish.

So, the Constitution has become nothing more than a piece of paper.

Our great Constitution has established an entire branch of government ( The Judicial Branch....you can look it up) to ensure that the Constitution is not ignored

Oh jeez... this is like your version of Ali's 'rope-a-dope'. Every time the illogic of unlimited government is pointed out to you, you fallback to tiresome and obvious descriptions of how the system 'works'. Obviously the Court is supposed to make sure it's not ignored, but are they succeeding? Should they take limited government seriously or not? You say no. I say they should. Unlimited government is dangerous and unstable.

 

[JoeNormal]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

Let's snap this discussion back to reality, shall we. It's hard for me to grasp why you favor taxing the poor in order to send the benefits to the rich.

So you premise is elderly are self sufficient? How much earning potential does someone 65 have?

Consider these two graphs in unison.

Now tell me how it is fair for poor young people to have to subsidize rich old people, people who've had an entire life to plan for their retirement while these young people are paying a higher share of their income in taxes than did the old people when they were at the same age.

You do understand that when poor young people are taxed at high rates, the money that goes to taxes delays their ability to start a family, buy a house, etc.

This eating of the seed corn, this plundering of the young in order to make the lives of the rich elderly even more comfortable is immoral. Look at those subsidies that go to retired people who didn't "save" enough to PREPAY their own retirement/medical bills. And the burden is falling onto strangers rather than family. I'm young and I find this utterly detestable. I have to sacrifice the wellbeing of my family in order to keep old people I don't even know comfortable because they consume more in benefits than they prepaid via taxes.

I have a duty to care for my parents, not your parents.

A comment about your graph. SS contributions are accumulated over decades. After interest and inflation, the amount of benefit payments is probably pretty much in line with the amount of contributions.

 

[rightwinger]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us.

We did. That's what the Constitution is all about. And we can change it if we want.

We don't have to

The Constitution sets a broad framework of governance that we all live to. Each generation gets to decide what they want from their government

Thomas Jefferson said it best..

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

The Constitution is regularly ignored. Most politicians and our government are not constrained by it and will do as they wish.

So, the Constitution has become nothing more than a piece of paper.

Our great Constitution has established an entire branch of government ( The Judicial Branch....you can look it up) to ensure that the Constitution is not ignored

Oh jeez... this is like your version of Ali's 'rope-a-dope'. Every time the illogic of unlimited government is pointed out to you, you fallback to tiresome and obvious descriptions of how the system 'works'. Obviously the Court is supposed to make sure it's not ignored, but are they succeeding? Should they take limited government seriously or not? You say no. I say they should. Unlimited government is dangerous and unstable.

Yes they are succeeding....we have 225 years of evidence

It is only Libertarians who are whining

 

[kaz]

Basically I think what you run here (in your threads in general) is a big wank echo chamber pot. You pretend to pose an open question, but any answers you don't like get shouted down. It's a dead end. You don't want dialogue, but monologue. What you want is a blog, not a discussion board.

I see, so when I ask questions, I wasn't supposed to disagree with the opinions I got. No one informed me of that. Basically you're too limp dicked to back up your Marxist drivel and resent being asked.

Bad news, I'm still not going to let you go without your ridiculous shit being challenged. It's tough being you. Having to use the mens room and yet pee sitting down, isn't it kiddie poo?

Once again -- QED. The more I point it out, the more you insist on confirming it.

See what I mean, Foxy?

Foxy?

Oh, I forgot, you're ignoring all this because I keep proving you wrong. Carry on then.

You're too inane to debate, so I'm just having fun with you. My God you do whine a lot.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

Why do you ask loaded questions? Did you think that would pass off as an argument? A Plurium Interrogationum fallacy, not to mention an ad baculum position with the elderly. She knows it, you know it.

I ask a logical questions. HOW would this 'charity only' society work?

A TV show based on an agrarian society? So you have a plan to take back farming from huge corporations? Looks like the evolution of society and the industrial revolution are not to be considered...

I hope that you're not a teacher, for if you are then I think I've discovered the problem with America's school system.

Not agrarian society, you moron, family.

Social Security is not exclusive to America. It has been endorsed as a basic right of human beings by the international community. And all other industrialized nations go beyond just Medicare. They cover ALL citizens.

Social Security is not an American concept. It is an international one.

Social Security is based upon a concept set forth in Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states, Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. In simple terms, the signatories agree that society in which a person lives should help them to develop and to make the most of all the advantages (culture, work, social welfare) which are offered to them in the country.[1]

Don't they teach you how to read in context in Ed School? Social security in this context refers not to the program but to having security of living in a social environment. Here is a kid's version of the UN website which explains this, kids version:

The society in which you live should help you to develop and to make the most of all the advantages (culture, work, social welfare) which are offered to you and to all the men and women in your country.​

There's nothing in the treaty which mandates that nations embrace socialism. Damn, are you ever stupid.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

IN context, Social Security is a framework for governments. It requires LAWS, which require government.

Are you really THAT stupid?

The right to social security is recognized as a human right and establishes the right to social security assistance for those unable to work due to sickness, disability, maternity, employment injury, unemployment or old age. Social security systems provided for by states consist of social insurance programs, which provide earned benefits for workers and their families by employment contributions, and/or social assistance programs which provide non-contributory benefits designed to provide minimum levels of social security to persons unable to access social insurance.


Liberals know all about family. When liberals were in power we didn't have to hide behind phrases like 'family values', it was just family. People made a living wage and one income could support a FAMILY, so mothers could stay at home and raise children.

I certainly don't recognize Social Security as a right, and neither does the Constitution. So, aside from socialists like you, who does?

 

[bripat9643]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us. Most things, we are capable of doing ourselves. But garnering the forces of a large community to do what is best for the whole community makes us stronger.
Limiting government to the vision of an 18th century bureaucrat does not make for a great nation

You're calling the Founding Fathers "18th Century bureaucrats?"

Mob rule does not make us stronger. It's a prescription for social decay and economic collapse. The dumb masses aren't competent to government themselves. That's what 250 years of American history have demonstrated.

 

[gipper]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us.

We did. That's what the Constitution is all about. And we can change it if we want.

We don't have to

The Constitution sets a broad framework of governance that we all live to. Each generation gets to decide what they want from their government

Thomas Jefferson said it best..

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

The Constitution is regularly ignored. Most politicians and our government are not constrained by it and will do as they wish.

So, the Constitution has become nothing more than a piece of paper.

Our great Constitution has established an entire branch of government ( The Judicial Branch....you can look it up) to ensure that the Constitution is not ignored

Oh jeez... this is like your version of Ali's 'rope-a-dope'. Every time the illogic of unlimited government is pointed out to you, you fallback to tiresome and obvious descriptions of how the system 'works'. Obviously the Court is supposed to make sure it's not ignored, but are they succeeding? Should they take limited government seriously or not? You say no. I say they should. Unlimited government is dangerous and unstable.

Yes they are succeeding....we have 225 years of evidence

It is only Libertarians who are whining

You need to get better sources of information.

Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters now think the country is headed down the wrong track. This finding is down three points from 69% a week ago, the highest negative finding since last November. Eighty percent (80%) felt the country was on the wrong track in early October 2013.Right Direction or Wrong Track - Rasmussen Reports trade

I do not think 66% of Americans are Libertarians. They are not the only ones unhappy with our government, but you would not know this, since you get all your information from the DNC.

 

[bripat9643]

[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.

Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.

I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I came to discern what the difference might be between "libertarian" and "liberal", which is apparently that the latter is a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age faggot".

Nice people, these "libertarians". Nice place to visit but I don't wanna live there.

The difference between a minarchist libertarian, as kaz laid out in his original post, and a modern day liberal is that while the libertarian sees an expressly limited role for the state, the liberal seeks to expand the powers of the state to include the role of creating a more egalitarian society. Many modern liberals today also see a role for the state in foreign adventurism. Libya, Iraq, and Syria, for example.

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

With no limits on their power to do "that which needs doing," as decided by politicians.

No...

We the people limit their power through the vote. Been working for hundreds of years

Wrong. It hasn't worked at all. You actually believe their power is limited?

 

[kaz]

No Pogo, I asked you a question. You have not the backbone to answer it. You evade me with "it's already been done" no my friend, you are being lazy. When you out your opinion here it is fair game. Stop being so thin skinned that you react to dissent with dismissal. There was a time I thought you were a grownup here, you are consistently proving me wrong. Now answer the question, you coward. Stop dodging me.

Cram it up your ass pal, it's been done and redone. I don't need you to make my points for me, particularly points that have nothing to do with you. You want it, get off your ass and find it yourself.

LOL, you're too stupid to prove water is wet.

And also, moron, you are on a message board. You don't have to answer questions, which you never do because your pants are empty, but anyone can ask you a question. If you want to have private conversations, go to a chat room. That is if you can find anyone who doesn't think you're too creepy to go into a room alone with you.

You may now commence whining.

 

[kaz]

No...

We the people limit their power through the vote. Been working for hundreds of years

Wrong. It hasn't worked at all. You actually believe their power is limited?

He doesn't want the government limited in doing his plundering for him, he just wants it limited in regard to their requiring him to do anything for it.