What is a small government libertarian?

[bripat9643]

"Streets, roads, and above all, schools, should all be privately owned and privately run. The separation of state and economics. The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force. This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run"
--Atlas Shrugged

Maybe roads could be managed privately, but only government can acquire the land to build a national network of roads and I like that I don't live my entire life within 10 miles of where my great grandparents were born.

Ayn Rand was a great writer, a thought leader and very educational, but just because she says it doesn't mean I have to think it.

But somehow the railroads managed to create a national network without without the help of government.

 

[eagle1462010]

What is it with these dang large caps........

 

[Dad2three]

Unless one side takes the House, Senate, and POTUS at the same time..........And then ram home PURE DEMOCRACY down everyone's throats and CHEER the PEOPLE WANTED IT.

Which is the Tyranny of the simple majority. If the Senate was picked by State Legislatures as the original Constitution, Obamacare would have never passed. You should still praise Wilson for that.

Spare me the Will of the People bit on that one. It's boring. The House was the voice of the people and the Senate was supposed to be the voice of the State Governments.

"Senate was supposed to be the voice of the State Governments."

NOT really. It was more of a desire to get support from the states to ratify the the Constitution

BTW, Madison opposed it, he wanted direct elections of the Senate

Again, that's how the Founders Created the Constitution, until the progressive movement turned it upside down..........................

That is why the States have lost their voice in the Federal Gov't. Which is BS.

Weird, you don't like the AMENDED US CONSTITUTION THE WAY THE FOUNDERS WANTED?

The original system of having state legislatures elect U.S. senators began to break down with the growth of political parties in the mid-19th century. Disagreements between and within parties produced deadlocks that delayed state legislative business and left states without their full Senate representation, often for lengthy periods. This amendment provides for senators to be elected the way members of the House are—by direct election of the people.


The Constitution

 

[Dad2three]

"Streets, roads, and above all, schools, should all be privately owned and privately run. The separation of state and economics. The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force. This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run"
--Atlas Shrugged

Maybe roads could be managed privately, but only government can acquire the land to build a national network of roads and I like that I don't live my entire life within 10 miles of where my great grandparents were born.

Ayn Rand was a great writer, a thought leader and very educational, but just because she says it doesn't mean I have to think it.

But somehow the railroads managed to create a national network without without the help of government.

Yeah, yeah, SURE THEY DID *shakling head*


The largest government subsidies in U.S. history financed the railroad boom. Between 1862 and 1872, Congress gave the railroad companies more than 100 million acres of public land and over $64 million in loans and tax breaks…

 

[Dad2three]

ok dingle berry

what government programs do the libertarian party platform supports?

.

honestly i could care less, they believe in myths and fairy tales. Why take them seriously? Lol



sociopaths and ignorant tools are their base!

there. You can not identify one single government program they support. You are pissed because we refuse to support your little monsters.

.

So you don't support Army, Courts, FAA, etc? lol

 

[thereisnospoon]

I don't support wefare for all, but I don't support corporations shitting on the worker either

Yes, you do, you support a system where the corporations and the rich buy government and do exactly that.

Here in the real world the government does in fact pay tax payer dollars to the private sector to get certain things done. Would you rather it wasn't done???? You see, our government contracts out to the private sector to construct that bridge or that rocket to get to space.

Right. Government is the middle man. Government drives up the cost of doing business with crushing regulations and other encumbrances which do nothing to ensure safety or protect workers or any of the other nonsense government claims it does.
There are laws to protect workers, the environment, that regulate business. There is no need for the federal dept of redundancy dept.
I'm sick of government waste fraud abuse and utter stupidity.
Our US House rep has decided he wants to be a man of the people. So he has set up offices throughout the district so he can talk to hsi constituents. I guarantee he is going to get an earful ( in a respectful manner of course) from me....And I voted for the guy. I'm not really in objection with this particular House Member. I want him to know that they( the Beltway) aren't getting it done right.
The country is falling apart. The legislation they are passing is garbage. The practice of digging their heels into the ground is not the way to go....If they don't like what Obama wants, then don't just say "no"...Instead be positive. Come up with a better idea.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's it in a nutshell. No workers rights, no safety net, no regulations and certainly no doing anything together as a nation. Kind of dumb.

Two posters who don't have a clue on why the Founders created a Republic. The checks and balances main purpose was to ensure a small Majority could enforce it's views on the minority, which could be a minority of 49%...................

One extra vote in a Pure Democracy can lead to Tyranny. Which is why we are a Republic.

You two are trying to push a cart instead of pulling it.

A Republic based on democratic representation!

Are you ever going to make a point?

 

[whitehall]

It's hard to define a "small government" since the federal government is so big. It's easier to take it by bureaucracy. The unstated primary mission of a federal government bureaucracy is to get bigger, more powerful and get more confiscated taxpayer money. Democrats are great at creating useless, often competing bureaucracies with slick sounding names and before you know it the federal government is a jobs fair.

As the GOP led by Reagan/Dubya were the two who grew Gov't bigger and spent more in recent times. Go figure

The dirty little secret is that Reagan's government isn't even close to what we have become today and nobody is any better off. Nobody ever said Bush was a small government conservative so you can shove the stale comparison where the sun don't shine. LBJ's failed "War on Poverty" has morphed into it's own freaking universe and is so out of control that nobody can stop it even though as many people are in poverty as when the law was signed. When republicans (and only republicans) want to trim the size of failed anti-poverty competing bureaucracies the democrat party cries racism and the low information left laps it up like pablum and we are back to zero..

 

[bripat9643]

What I want is freedom, not rule by anyone. Rule by the majority is often just as tyrannical as rule by the minority. Not being ruled at all is what we should aim at.

Putting everything up for a vote does not make for a desirable society. The more things people vote on, the more society slides down the chute to tyranny and social unrest.

The Mob is a favored tool of a Tyrant. He can enact his despotic will behind the body shield of the Mob....and its difficult for the oppressed minority to cut the head off of a mob.

True, the TP/GOP is showing US that today

You are such a drone.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That is just for starters. People like him want to do away with
-The clean air act
-Nasa
-Nws/noaa
-Regulations stopping monopolies
-Regulations creating a clean work environment.
-Regulations on all businesses
-Taxing the rich at all
-Epa, cdc, fda and down the list
-Infrastructure funding

This guy is all about fuck you and you better be able to do it all yourselve or die.

From where do you dredge this shit?
None of this is true.
You are now marginalized as a kook.

Idiot, your movement says you don't want GOVERNMENT in anything outside of defense. So I assume that this is what you're saying.

Attention, Mr Room Temperature IQ..I am not part of any "movement"....
Your problems are two fold. First, you cannot fathom any issue outside of your own obsessive notion of how things should be.
Second, you have the mental capacity of a gnat.
You are indeed a fringe kook.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why would anyone listen to the ten percent nutjob libertarians demanding small government when we can have a right sized government?

Right sized government?
Please explain

 

[bripat9643]

"The Founding Fathers were the 1st Libertarians. They wrote the Constitution. "

LMAOROG

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.




The Washington Monthly




"The power of all corporations ought to be limited," wrote James Madison


Like fellow Federalists James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton, he saw the Constitutional Convention as an opportunity to craft a central government powerful enough to serve as an effective check on the states -- an entity that for all intents and purposes hadn't existed during the ill-fated tenure of the Articles of Confederation (THAT'S MUCH MORE LIBERTARIAN!!!)


...Jefferson, of course, is the Founding Father most often cited for his supposedly libertarian sentiments, perhaps due to his wariness of the national government with respect to its interference in the rights of states. .... "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations,"


Daniel Cluchey: The Founding Fathers Were Not Libertarians

Baloney. Who said Libertarians don't want regulations. Commerce is in the Constitution you dope. There's a difference between interference and fair commerce. One gets the snap with no flags and the better team wins. The other gets a flag and a penalty of 15 yards for holding the receiver trying to run a business.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.


Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

The problem with your theory is that corporations in the 18th century were not like corporations as we know them today. In the modern era incorporating is just a license to do business. In the 18th Century a corporation was a grant of special privilege from the crown, usually a monopoly on trade in a given geographical area.It's no suprise that the Founding Fathers were opposed to the corporations that existed in those days since they were just another manifestation of royal privilege and the aristocracy.

Your sleazy tactic of pretending the two things are the same just goes to show how utterly pathetic your position is.

 

[Contumacious]

honestly i could care less, they believe in myths and fairy tales. Why take them seriously? Lol



sociopaths and ignorant tools are their base!

there. You can not identify one single government program they support. You are pissed because we refuse to support your little monsters.

.

So you don't support Army, Courts, FAA, etc? lol

I see , So if we were to support those programs that would mean that we have a duty to also financially support your household, right?

/

 

[Dad2three]

It's hard to define a "small government" since the federal government is so big. It's easier to take it by bureaucracy. The unstated primary mission of a federal government bureaucracy is to get bigger, more powerful and get more confiscated taxpayer money. Democrats are great at creating useless, often competing bureaucracies with slick sounding names and before you know it the federal government is a jobs fair.

As the GOP led by Reagan/Dubya were the two who grew Gov't bigger and spent more in recent times. Go figure

The dirty little secret is that Reagan's government isn't even close to what we have become today and nobody is any better off. Nobody ever said Bush was a small government conservative so you can shove the stale comparison where the sun don't shine. LBJ's failed "War on Poverty" has morphed into it's own freaking universe and is so out of control that nobody can stop it even though as many people are in poverty as when the law was signed. When republicans (and only republicans) want to trim the size of failed anti-poverty competing bureaucracies the democrat party cries racism and the low information left laps it up like pablum and we are back to zero..

Federal outlays (total spending) rose by 40 percent under Reagan’s first four budgets (fiscal year 1985 vs. Carter’s last budget for fiscal 1981). That was two-and-a-half times faster than the rate of inflation, which rose 16 percent during the same period, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.


On spending, ironically, Obama’s record has indeed been the “exact opposite” of Reagan’s in one little-noticed respect. Under Obama, federal spending is actually falling, something that never happened under Reagan.


Ted?s Twisted History


Reagan, outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%


Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan? - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

there. You can not identify one single government program they support. You are pissed because we refuse to support your little monsters.

.

So you don't support Army, Courts, FAA, etc? lol

I see , So if we were to support those programs that would mean that we have a duty to also financially support your household, right?

/

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY thing in the rights tool box!

 

[Dad2three]

Baloney. Who said Libertarians don't want regulations. Commerce is in the Constitution you dope. There's a difference between interference and fair commerce. One gets the snap with no flags and the better team wins. The other gets a flag and a penalty of 15 yards for holding the receiver trying to run a business.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.


Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

The problem with your theory is that corporations in the 18th century were not like corporations as we know them today. In the modern era incorporating is just a license to do business. In the 18th Century a corporation was a grant of special privilege from the crown, usually a monopoly on trade in a given geographical area.It's no suprise that the Founding Fathers were opposed to the corporations that existed in those days since they were just another manifestation of royal privilege and the aristocracy.

Your sleazy tactic of pretending the two things are the same just goes to show how utterly pathetic your position is.

Weird, you know the 13 Colonies WERE Corps right? BUT you 'think' the US Founders would be OK with the current Corps are people and money is speech nonsense? lol

 

[bripat9643]

PLEASE just ONE state or nation to EVER use libertarian myths and fairy tales? EVER?

Please show us ONE successful Collectivist State that has implemented the nonsense you advocate.

US, Germany, Denmark, UK, Switzerland, Japan, etc...

BWAHAHAHAHA!!

Those are all highly capitalist states. Denmark and Switzerland are near the top of the Heritage index of economic freedom.

Why is it that when libturds are asked to give successful examples of socialism they always list a bunch of capitalist countries?

 

[Dad2three]

The Mob is a favored tool of a Tyrant. He can enact his despotic will behind the body shield of the Mob....and its difficult for the oppressed minority to cut the head off of a mob.

True, the TP/GOP is showing US that today

You are such a drone.

And the 'free hand' of the market magically created the rail system in the US lol

 

[bripat9643]

Why would anyone assume small government s desirable?

Which "small government" should we base ourselves on?

Government is the monopoly on the use of force. What is desirable about government at all?

 

[thereisnospoon]

A Republic based on democratic representation!

So?

I am a voter just as much as you!

Then make a point of informing yourself...If you choose to participate in the process, try learning something about it.