What is a small government libertarian?

[Dad2three]

That you don't understand the difference between representative government - in particular constitutionally limited representative government - and mob rule. Your history profs must been asleep.

"in particular constitutionally limited representative government"


SUBJECTIVE. Guess what, you klowns LOST that fight, over and over and over!

Back to gloating over mob rule again, eh? That seems to be your comfort zone.

The idea that government power should be constitutionally limited is fundamental to our system of government. That's first year civics stuff. If you don't accept that, it puts you on the radical fringe, far moreso than libertarians.

"constitutionally limited is fundamental to our system of government"

IT IS. AGAIN


SUBJECTIVE

 

[dblack]

"in particular constitutionally limited representative government"


SUBJECTIVE. Guess what, you klowns LOST that fight, over and over and over!

Back to gloating over mob rule again, eh? That seems to be your comfort zone.

The idea that government power should be constitutionally limited is fundamental to our system of government. That's first year civics stuff. If you don't accept that, it puts you on the radical fringe, far moreso than libertarians.

"constitutionally limited is fundamental to our system of government"

IT IS. AGAIN


SUBJECTIVE

Not really. That's well established history. You were kidding about the history minor, right?

 

[bripat9643]

They were being subsidized before the Civil War. The Illinois Central was given a massive amount of land in the early 1850's, for one. The Camden and Amboy was most certainly a government monopoly, and was hugely profitable even when saddled with the Delaware Canal. All the short lines that eventually made up the New York Central, all the Massachusetts lines, etc., all subsidized. The Pennsy too. I think the Maunch Chunk, I probably spelled it wrong, may have been private, but it only served a coal mine company and wasn't a public carrier, and was originally a gravity road anyway. Can't recall a single private road of any kind; they all depended on 'eminent domain' confiscations by government fiat for their routes.

In contrast, the British railroads were all private, IIRC, the land purchased piece by piece from individual landowners, at much higher upfront expense, and yet they were steadily profitable for the most part, while the American speculators and financiers looted and bankrupted and cheated their shareholders routinely, as if they were entitled to.

Throttling the Railroads: 2. Aiding the Railroads: 1830-1871 : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

In any case, the state aid to rail*roads proved to be the wrong way to get them built. One historian sums up the results to the mid*point of the nineteenth century: "The experience of… states with government-sponsored internal im*provements—the Erie being the sole exception—had ended disas*trously."9 Another writer notes that "there was a good deal of fraud and corruption in connec*tion with state aid to railroads, and in later years a number of states repudiated some of their ob*ligations made in connection with railroad construction. Because of the corruption involved and be*cause of the heavy tax burden the people were asked to bear to meet the states’ promises, it later be*came common for state constitu*tions to prohibit the investment of state money in any private enter*prise."¹º

It often turned out that what was not a good investment for pri*vate investors was not a good one for governments. But that is not the whole story. Government in*vestment made such railroad build*ing politically determined rather than economic, turned over the funds to the cleverest lobbyists on occasion rather than to those likely to provide sound manage*ment, led to building at times and to places that would not then be justified, and sometimes saddled these premature undertakings with large debts. By reserving the right to regulate in charters, and by giving aid, states set the stage for intervention and made the status of the railroads before the law am*biguous.

Weird, you mean Gov't CREATING infrastructure BEFORE the 'free market' did was wrong? Even though it GREATLY expanded the opportunities for Americans AND the coming immigrants? lol

The state creating infrastructure, period, is wrong. As the article noted, when the state gets into the business of creating infrastructure, decisions are made based on political considerations rather then economic considerations, and it is invariably associated with fraud and corruption.

"The experience of… states with government-sponsored internal im*provements—the Erie being the sole exception—had ended disas*trously."

 

[Dad2three]

Back to gloating over mob rule again, eh? That seems to be your comfort zone.

The idea that government power should be constitutionally limited is fundamental to our system of government. That's first year civics stuff. If you don't accept that, it puts you on the radical fringe, far moreso than libertarians.

"constitutionally limited is fundamental to our system of government"

IT IS. AGAIN


SUBJECTIVE

Not really. That's well established history. You were kidding about the history minor, right?

Seriously? lol

Subjective may refer to: Subjectivity, a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery


GUESS WHAT, YOUR SIDE KEEPS LOSING ON THE SUBJECTIVE PART: SS, MEDICARE, INCOME TAXES, WELFARE, ACA, ETC... lol

 

[Dad2three]

Throttling the Railroads: 2. Aiding the Railroads: 1830-1871 : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

Weird, you mean Gov't CREATING infrastructure BEFORE the 'free market' did was wrong? Even though it GREATLY expanded the opportunities for Americans AND the coming immigrants? lol

The state creating infrastructure, period, is wrong. As the article noted, when the state gets into the business of creating infrastructure, decisions are made based on political considerations rather then economic considerations, and it is invariably associated with fraud and corruption.

"The experience of… states with government-sponsored internal im*provements—the Erie being the sole exception—had ended disas*trously."

MORE SUBJECTIVE opinions. Got it

 

[dblack]

"constitutionally limited is fundamental to our system of government"

IT IS. AGAIN


SUBJECTIVE

Not really. That's well established history. You were kidding about the history minor, right?

Seriously? lol

Subjective may refer to: Subjectivity, a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery


GUESS WHAT, YOUR SIDE KEEPS LOSING ON THE SUBJECTIVE PART: SS, MEDICARE, INCOME TAXES, WELFARE, ACA, ETC... lol

Seriously. Do some reading. It's well established that our government is designed to be a constitutionally limited, representative democracy. This is not controversial, nor subjective. It's objective historical fact. Honest people may disagree on how to interpret constitutional limits, but denying that our government is based on the concept isn't a matter of opinion. It's simply ignorant.

 

[Dad2three]

Not really. That's well established history. You were kidding about the history minor, right?

Seriously? lol

Subjective may refer to: Subjectivity, a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery


GUESS WHAT, YOUR SIDE KEEPS LOSING ON THE SUBJECTIVE PART: SS, MEDICARE, INCOME TAXES, WELFARE, ACA, ETC... lol

Seriously. Do some reading. It's well established that our government is designed to be a constitutionally limited, representative democracy. This is not controversial, nor subjective. It's objective historical fact. Honest people may disagree on how to interpret constitutional limits, but denying that our government is based on the concept isn't a matter of opinion. It's simply ignorant.

GUESS WHAT, YOUR SIDE KEEPS LOSING ON THE SUBJECTIVE PART: SS, MEDICARE, INCOME TAXES, WELFARE, ACA, ETC... lol

 

[Londoner]

I have a Libertarian friend who is pro life but he doesn't think government has the moral authority to stand between the individual and God.

Nor does he believe in military activism.

He opposed Iraq from day 1, saying that Washington doesn't have the competence to rebuild an Arab nation.

You want a small government yet you are giving it the budget and power to reshape whole foreign nations?

(Turn off talk radio and take your brain back)

 

[asterism]

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

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

This board is polluted with your posts ranting how AWFUL life is for the common man in the U.S., so your utopian view could not possibly be represented by the U.S.

The rest are hardly the socialist paradises you envision, as any reading of the news would enable a person with a functioning higher brain functions to comprehend.

I do like Switzerland's mandatory gun ownership - that's good policy.

Oh you change it to utopian? Sorry. Misunderstood that. US 1945-1980? Around 30% unionized, SHARED increase in wages and standards, growing middle class, education system #1 in the world, forward thinking, etc

Then, Reaganomics (myths and fairy tales) took hold



Socialist paradises? ANOTHER premise in one post? Weird.

Are you honestly saying things were just swell from 1945-1980?

Why did we need the "War on Poverty" and the "Great Society" then? Why did we need to start Medicare? Why did Kennedy advocate for a massive income tax cut?

Were the Carter years good in your opinion?

 

[asterism]

Nope, pointing out OVER AND OVER, libertarianism NEVER works. You can't point to ONE state or nation to EVER use it successfully. Weird? lol

Well, it's ridiculously unfair to expect people to to point to something that never existed in real life, outside of say, Somalia.

Somebody brought up something about 'Fair Tax' bills? I've read at least 11 of them, and there is nothing 'fair' about them. I guess I just shouldn't read them all the way through, so I could pretend to be for 'fair taxes n stuff', too. It's a lot easier to be for 'fair taxes' if you don't actually read the bills proposed.

Somalia is anarchy, not libertarian. Read my OP post, I said I am not referring to anarchy.

Somalia is a collapsed Marxist nation, not anarchy. The crony-capitalism didn't work and now the politicos run their own fiefdoms.

 

[norwegen]

So?

"Two posters who don't have a clue on why the Founders created a Republic"


KINDA THINK WE DID, ONCE MORE

"A Republic based on democratic representation!"

I call shenanigans. Where does Democracy or Democratic Representation appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

The term does not appear, and deliberately so, apparently. The states kept it out of their constitutions as well.

To be fair, though, selection of local representatives by the people was constitutionally provided for in 1789. In no way, though, did our founding documents provide for the popular selection of any other officer. That democracy is no longer contained in the lower chamber of the legislature is the handiwork of progressivism, a movement that explicitly and directly contravenes our founding principles.

 

[norwegen]

Sure, it wasn't progressive policies that created the worlds largest middle class, it was private Corps. They also built the RR's, roads, work that created the internet, cell phones, CAT scans, etc...

Yes they did. Furthermore, you only mentioned a small percentage of what America is.

Without PROGRESSIVE GOV'T POLICIES the US would look like a 3rd world nation right? HONESTY, TRY IT!

Actually, British Americans as early as the 1640s were better off economically than British commoners were. The Americans continued to prosper, and quite easily, largely because they were able to tap into abundant resources, to be sure, but also because Britain essentially left them alone to engage Europe in trade with their agriculture and shipbuilding. When Britain finally decided to impose on them with the Intolerable Acts, the Americans protested, and, of course, continued to prosper.

When the Progressives of the 20th century were finally able to inject their ideology into our government and impose on the Americans, the protests they were met with were feeble and overcome. Progressivism, consequently, has been choking us for more than 100 years, and now, finally, the United States is no longer the city on the hill. It's ordinary.

Given even more time, you progressives very well may transform our nation into third-world toilet.

 

[kaz]

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

And you want to super size that right sized baby

We the People get to decide how much government we want

What a country

And fuck the minority, the mob rules. That is blatantly Un-Constitutional.

 

[kaz]

YOU'D THINK WITH ALL THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL STUFF, SCOTUS WOULD'VE ALREADY STOPPED HIM? lol

April 30, 2006

Bush challenges hundreds of laws

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all

Bush didn't go off the deep end by threatening and insulting the SCOTUS, you moron.

Nor did he claim he would go against SCOTUS ruling by issuing executive orders.

Nope, he just wiretapped without court orders and tortured people....

Which became OK to you when the R after the Presidents name turned to a D and he did the same thing

 

[Contumacious]

I WAS HOPING SOME DUMBASS WOULD COME UP WITH THAT (MINOR IN HISTORY REMEMBER?)


Government Intervention, James J. Hill and the Great Northern Railway

James J. Hill is often invoked as a hero by apologists for extreme laissez faire, because his railway was allegedly built completely privately, without any government subsidies or land grants. Unfortunately, there some inconvenient facts the free market ideologues leave out when they discuss Hill and the Great Northern Railway:

(1) Hill acquired a pre-existing railway called the Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad (which was originally charted as the “Minnesota and Pacific Railroad” in 1857) as the starting basis for his Great Northern Railway. The Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad existed because of massive government support:

Mr Dingle Berry Sir

1- The Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad (also known as the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad and the SP&P) was a shortline railroad in the state of Minnesota in the United States which existed from 1857 to 1879. Founded as the Minnesota and Pacific Railroad, it was the state's first active railroad.[1][2

James J. Hill, who ran steamboats on the Red River, knew that the SP&P owned very valuable land grants and saw the potential of the railroad.[14] Hill convinced John S. Kennedy (a New York City banker who had represented the Dutch bondholders), Norman Kittson (Hill's friend and a wealthy fur trader), Donald Smith (a Montreal banker and executive with the Hudson's Bay Company), and George Stephen (Smith's cousin and a wealthy railroad executive) to invest $5.5 million in purchasing the railroad.[1

Show me where the federal government gave Hill's investment group one single penny to buy the bankrupt RR.

.

Like I said, THEY BENEFITED FROM GOV'T SUBSIDIES FROM THE RR'S THEY TOOK OVER. True or false?

WUT?

How much of the 5.5 million investment was a subsidy from

a) the State of Minnesota, __________________________%

b) from the federal government _____________________%


.

 

[rightwinger]

And you want to super size that right sized baby

We the People get to decide how much government we want

What a country

And fuck the minority, the mob rules. That is blatantly Un-Constitutional.

Do you think the 10% of Americans who are libertarian should rule?

 

[kaz]

"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.

That's not true and for the same reason. Railroads in rural areas largely crossed government lands and government acquired land through eminent domain elsewhere necessary such as to access urban centers. Railroads did not ever arrange with thousands of independent land owners to cross their property.

If you are arguing that roads could be privately operated, that's at least a debatable point. If you're arguing that without any government involvement, particularly eminent domain, it's just ridiculous.

On privately operating them, I don't see the difference between government controlled utilities like electric power grids and government for example, so a private company contracted by government is still government. And if you're arguing the hundreds of millions of people could arrange to care for roads on their own, that's ridiculous too.

Maybe you could present a plan. I certainly will consider that, but I'm not seeing it. As far as the thread goes, I do want to point out I said I am not referring to anarchy, and you are an anarchist. I'm not saying anything against your bringing it up, I'm just pointing out to anyone reading the thread this is not a disagreement between small government libertarians.

 

[kaz]

Well, it's ridiculously unfair to expect people to to point to something that never existed in real life, outside of say, Somalia.

Somebody brought up something about 'Fair Tax' bills? I've read at least 11 of them, and there is nothing 'fair' about them. I guess I just shouldn't read them all the way through, so I could pretend to be for 'fair taxes n stuff', too. It's a lot easier to be for 'fair taxes' if you don't actually read the bills proposed.

Somalia is anarchy, not libertarian. Read my OP post, I said I am not referring to anarchy.

Somalia is a collapsed Marxist nation, not anarchy. The crony-capitalism didn't work and now the politicos run their own fiefdoms.

You just said Somalia's not anarchy, it's anarchy. Independent fiefdoms are not contradictory to anarchy, they are anarchy. Think about it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

We the People get to decide how much government we want

What a country

And fuck the minority, the mob rules. That is blatantly Un-Constitutional.

Do you think the 10% of Americans who are libertarian should rule?

Rule?

You're such a moron, RWer.

 

[jillian]

And you want to super size that right sized baby

We the People get to decide how much government we want

What a country

And fuck the minority, the mob rules. That is blatantly Un-Constitutional.

minority rights are (or were until the hobby lobby case) protected. you do not have the RIGHT to obstruct government because the wing nut gubmint haters are spoiled brats and sore losers.

so no, i'm all for minority rights... not wack jobs.