What is a small government libertarian?

[rightwinger]

The Constitution. Remember that thing?

Hello..................

We are based on the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it mention small government?

Enumerated powers it was in my first post on this thread but Obama shredded it.

No court has ever limited us to those powers. Can you point to any cases where your powers were all Congress was allowed?

 

[norwegen]

I believe in the enumerated powers of the Founding Fathers. aka a Leash on their power, and the power to take from one American and give it to another because it makes you feel good.

We give out more than we take in and that is a recipe for economic ruin. The founders looked into Ancient Greece and they screwed themselves. This is exactly why they created a Republic.

The Founding Fathers were the 1st Libertarians. They wrote the Constitution. It worked and somehow our country has continually tried to fix what wasn't broken. Which is leading us down the path of history. Like Greece. We cannot sustain the BS that has been passed. It's not possible. No matter how you cherry pick the data.

The creation of the American Republic was the inspiration not only of classical antiquity, but also of more recent examples in Europe, such as England after the Glorious Revolution and of Holland after gaining independence from Spain.

The Americans of the age were also very familiar with Enlightenment thinkng and the works of Hume, Locke, Montesquieu, etc., and the political and social theories of Puritanism and Covenant Theology. Their inspiration for small-government libertarianism could be found around every corner, and it so disappointed the Tories. But even the Whigs knew that government in some measure was necessary because men were not angels.

You are correct; societies built on arbitrary rule are not sustainable. They weren't back then, and they aren't now.

 

[Dad2three]

The Government's only role in the economy should be enforcing contracts that were voluntarily agreed upon by all parties. Voluntary contracts are the force of the Free Market, and Government needs to be the force behind that contract, otherwise everything falls to pieces, as their is no confidence in the market.

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.



Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation




Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.



The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[norwegen]

Can anyone identify the small government utopia we should base ourselves on?

The United States before the Progressive Era.

 

[Dad2three]

The Constitution. Remember that thing?

Hello..................

Oh you mean the STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T THING?

Changing history again Dad................The Federalist papers say differently. All warning us about YOU frankly Dad.

Federalist papers? Oh the advertisements of the day. That's called propaganda Bubba!

 

[Dad2three]

Nope. there's nothing intrinsically moral or just about majority rule. A lynch mob is majority rule in action.

Ironically though, most People don't want the rest of the Libertarian agenda.



I do agree it's non viable in a democratic society. You're error is in your choice of which one to dispense with, libertarianism or democracy.

There you go, a poster who not only admits that Libertarianism won't work in a democratic society,

but one who would rather have the former than the latter.

A Libertarian autocracy...

...now there's a concept.

Libertarianism doesn't work in democratic society. It does, however, work in republican society.

PLEASE just ONE state or nation to EVER use it successfully? lol

 

[Contumacious]

The Government's only role in the economy should be enforcing contracts that were voluntarily agreed upon by all parties. Voluntary contracts are the force of the Free Market, and Government needs to be the force behind that contract, otherwise everything falls to pieces, as their is no confidence in the market.

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.



Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation




Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.

WHY then did it take the "progressives" and a left leaning president 148 years to "find" that authority?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[eagle1462010]

Oh you mean the STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T THING?

Changing history again Dad................The Federalist papers say differently. All warning us about YOU frankly Dad.

Federalist papers? Oh the advertisements of the day. That's called propaganda Bubba!

The Federalist papers were written by the Madison and Jefferson primarily to explain it, and help get it ratified. So now those two are Propaganda artist.

I think not. I do believe you are one though.....................

 

[Dad2three]

You see dad. This is how people like you treat businesses. You mug them before the ball is even near the receiver. In a Libertarian world that is still a penalty. In a liberal one, it's fair to mug the receiver before he the ball gets there. It's called open markets with limited intrusion. Yet you still get no flag or penalty if you play by the rules.

Got it, you'll stick to myths and fairy tales


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


The Founders Were No Libertarians

Mr Dingle Berry, sir


What difference does it make to individuals that the federal government be precluded from tyrannizing but any of the states could?!?!?!?!?!!?

Specifically, what difference does it make , for instance, that the federal government can not censor speech but any of the states can censor?

.

Which state can censor speech?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I feel we can cut the size of federal government by over 50% right off the top. Some federal departments or programs completely gone ( food stamps, HUD, Energy) or drastically reduced (Education, Commerce, Justice ). After paying for national defense, Social Security (unless they give me all my contributions back, then get rid of it too), and transferring elderly off Medicare...then it's "block grants" to the states. Cut 50 checks for each state based on population and let the Governors and state legislators decide how to spend it. I want a day when cable news has NOTHING to report from Washington DC.

I agree with much of your post.
If elected president, I would...
Halve federal employment. There are far too many federal employees. Many of whom do not produce anything.
With the reduction in federal employment, I would also radically change the way federal employees are compensated and their benefits system. First they would be placed into the Social Security system. Second, their pension would be gone. All federal employees would be enrolled into 401k type savings accounts tied to LIBOR.
Next...Take 50% of all enlisted infantry and command from bases on foreign soil and place them in our Sea ports, airports and along the borders.
Reduce foreign aid to a trickle. We cannot afford to help our own people but we can send billions to third world shit holes.
Drop the corp tax rate to the average of all industrialized competing nations. If it's 12% ,so be it...Then give all companies which have "relocated" their corp HQ's overseas to avoid US taxes 24 months to repatriate or their assets here in the US will be taxed at DOUBLE the corp rate.
I would inform all of our friends across the globe that their friendship cuts both ways. That if they want our help, they must reciprocate. unconditionally.
There's more.

 

[eagle1462010]

There you go, a poster who not only admits that Libertarianism won't work in a democratic society,

but one who would rather have the former than the latter.

A Libertarian autocracy...

...now there's a concept.

Libertarianism doesn't work in democratic society. It does, however, work in republican society.

PLEASE just ONE state or nation to EVER use it successfully? lol

Several people have already told you it was the U.S. before people like you trashed it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't want SMALL GOVERNMENT. I'd vote for someone that wanted a more efficient government, but never small. America needs science institutions, infrastructure, education and regulations. Maybe not the bloated regs in some areas, but we do need many of them.

We can't be electing people that think we can scrap everything and go back to the 18th century. It doesn't work and will turn us into a back water.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Libertarianism doesn't work in democratic society. It does, however, work in republican society.

PLEASE just ONE state or nation to EVER use it successfully? lol

Several people have already told you it was the U.S. before people like you trashed it.

Vietnam? At least when it comes to workers rights.

 

[Contumacious]

Got it, you'll stick to myths and fairy tales


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


The Founders Were No Libertarians

Mr Dingle Berry, sir


What difference does it make to individuals that the federal government be precluded from tyrannizing but any of the states could?!?!?!?!?!!?

Specifically, what difference does it make , for instance, that the federal government can not censor speech but any of the states can censor?

.

Which state can censor speech?

Excuse me fucktard

you are the one who stated that the "articles of confederation" was a libertarian document but the Constitution (1787) was not.

Since when do Marxist care for free speech?

.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We are based on the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it mention small government?

Enumerated powers it was in my first post on this thread but Obama shredded it.

No court has ever limited us to those powers. Can you point to any cases where your powers were all Congress was allowed?

They can't. They just have a feeling to be cowboys in the wild west! Sure, I feel the goverment has over stepped in some area's that are consitutional like spying on Americans, but these people have got to be shitten me on rather we should have science institutions and maintain our highways.

 

[eagle1462010]

I don't want SMALL GOVERNMENT. I'd vote for someone that wanted a more efficient government, but never small. America needs science institutions, infrastructure, education and regulations. Maybe not the bloated regs in some areas, but we do need many of them.

We can't be electing people that think we can scrap everything and go back to the 18th century. It doesn't work and will turn us into a back water.

Straw man argument. You said it all when you said you didn't want a small Gov't. You support the nanny state we have today instead of individualism...................

 

[Dad2three]

I believe in the enumerated powers of the Founding Fathers. aka a Leash on their power, and the power to take from one American and give it to another because it makes you feel good.

We give out more than we take in and that is a recipe for economic ruin. The founders looked into Ancient Greece and they screwed themselves. This is exactly why they created a Republic.

The Founding Fathers were the 1st Libertarians. They wrote the Constitution. It worked and somehow our country has continually tried to fix what wasn't broken. Which is leading us down the path of history. Like Greece. We cannot sustain the BS that has been passed. It's not possible. No matter how you cherry pick the data.

The creation of the American Republic was the inspiration not only of classical antiquity, but also of more recent examples in Europe, such as England after the Glorious Revolution and of Holland after gaining independence from Spain.

The Americans of the age were also very familiar with Enlightenment thinkng and the works of Hume, Locke, Montesquieu, etc., and the political and social theories of Puritanism and Covenant Theology. Their inspiration for small-government libertarianism could be found around every corner, and it so disappointed the Tories. But even the Whigs knew that government in some measure was necessary because men were not angels.

You are correct; societies built on arbitrary rule are not sustainable. They weren't back then, and they aren't now.

" Their inspiration for small-government libertarianism could be found around every corner, and it so disappointed the Tories."


lol


Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html




John Locke condemned anyone who took more than he needed as a "spoiler of the commons":

" ...if the fruits rotted, or the venison putrified, before he could spend it, he offended against the common law of nature, and was liable to be punished; he invaded his neighbour's share, for he had no right, farther than his use called for any of them, and they might serve to afford him conveniences of life.


The same measures governed the possession of land too: whatsoever he tilled and reaped, laid up and made use of, before it spoiled, that was his peculiar right; whatsoever he enclosed, and could feed, and make use of, the cattle and product was also his. But if either the grass of his enclosure rotted on the ground, or the fruit of his planting perished without gathering, and laying up, this part of the earth, notwithstanding his enclosure, was still to be looked on as waste, and might be the possession of any other"


The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster

The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. Adam Smith

 

[Dad2three]

Mr Dingle Berry, sir


What difference does it make to individuals that the federal government be precluded from tyrannizing but any of the states could?!?!?!?!?!!?

Specifically, what difference does it make , for instance, that the federal government can not censor speech but any of the states can censor?

.

Which state can censor speech?

Excuse me fucktard

you are the one who stated that the "articles of confederation" was a libertarian document but the Constitution (1787) was not.

Since when do Marxist care for free speech?

.

So fukwad, I pointed the AofC were MUCH more libertarian than that BIG FEDERAL GOV'T CONSTITUTION. Once more, which states cam censor? lol

 

[eagle1462010]

Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." (Emphasis added)

James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10:

In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Chief Justice John Marshall observed,

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

 

[Dad2three]

Libertarianism doesn't work in democratic society. It does, however, work in republican society.

PLEASE just ONE state or nation to EVER use it successfully? lol

Several people have already told you it was the U.S. before people like you trashed it.

No, the US NEVER was a libertarian nation, from day one we had protectionists policies, and passel ALL of Alex Hamilton's BIG GOV'T economic system, Saying it was libertarian isn't showing it was, just more right wing MYTHS

American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia