Baron
Platinum Member
Libertarians are Liberal Conservatives.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
THey supported all kinds of coercive stuff. Madison writes that taxing people to create a public university is good public policy. All the states had restrictions on voting, sometimes on holding public office, etc etc. They objected only to a central government with that kind of authority. Rightly so.
THey supported all kinds of coercive stuff. Madison writes that taxing people to create a public university is good public policy. All the states had restrictions on voting, sometimes on holding public office, etc etc. They objected only to a central government with that kind of authority. Rightly so.
Restrictions on voting is not "coercion." We have restrictions on voting now. We also have government funded state universities. That being said, the Constitution leaves that kind of thing to the states, not the federal government.
Jake, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The majority of those attending the constitutional convention were not slave owners and even some who owned slaves opposed slavery. Many would have freed their slaves but feared that in the south unscrupulous slave owners would only re-enslave them and treat them badly.
A large majority of the first signers of the Constitution opposed slavery.
And even among those who owned slaves we have these quotes:
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, which, famously, declares that "all men are created equal," wrote. . . .
"There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him."
In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, George Washington wrote, "[Y]our late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view to emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair of seeing it."
(Washington and his wife held over 300 slaves. He wrote in his will that he'd wished to free his slaves, but that because of intermarriage between his and Martha's slaves, he feared the break-up of families should only his slaves be freed. He directed that his slaves be freed upon her death. His will provided for the continued care of all slaves, paid for from his estate.)
The great American scientist and publisher Benjamin Franklin held several slaves during his lifetime. He willed one of them be freed upon his death, but Franklin outlived him. In 1789, he said, "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils."
Constitutional Topic: Slavery - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
They were all products of their culture and the evidence is clear that, given the indefensible nature of slavery, they were in conflict with themselves over the slaves they owned. But it was obvious that freeing their slaves was also laced with ethical problems.
And all of that does not in any way diminish their vision of the world's first free people who would have their rights secured by the Federal government and would then be free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have.
And to me THAT is the definition of libertarianism.
Sooooo... if he was so against owning slaves and thought that it was so bad, why did he wait until after his death to free them? Could he not have decided one day to free both his and Martha's slaves while he was still alive? It sounds more to me like he was saying "Owning slaves is horrible, but its so damn convenient."
Yup. Exactly my point. The Founders were not narco-libertarians. They were fine with the social order being enforced by law. Just not at the Federal level. Each state was free to do what it wanted. It was not until after the Civil War that the BoR was incorporated to include the states.
Foxfyre, I am not going to quarrel with you. By signing the Constitutional convention, the Founders signed onto regressive governance. No way around it. The New Right attempts to rewrite history must be exposed every time they do it. For instance, Paul Revere's intent on his ride was to warn the colonists about the British raid on miliita supplies and capture rebel leaders, not warn the British to keep their hands of our 2nd Amendment rights. Lexington is not in Concord or New Hampshire.
This wacky agenda of the Hard Right has to be exposed for what it is, partisan politics, not grounded history.
cool... another rightwingnut nutbar who blames the failure of a 30 year long rightwing agenda on RINO's
too funny.
The majority who signed the Constitution certainly did. The date 1865 was inserted to show the strength of effect by the Founders' support of slavery.
A libertarian is a Republican who found out how badly the GOP under Bush screwed over the country and are now trying to avoid being linked with them. Much like the communist like parties of Europe who suddenly became "Green" parties after the wall fell.
Libertarians are also those that are in most denial of over who was responsible for the crisis. They exclusively blame the left and supposedly left wing policies, and try to push the same failed policies that actually lead to the crisis in the first place. This is very evident since they keep trying to promote Reagan and Reaganomics as some sort of saviour when in fact it is those attitudes that ultimately lead to the crisis.
While many of the core ideas of a Libertarian/Conservative are in my own view quite good, the utter denial of responsibility and lack of accountability by the US libertarian/conservative has really soured the brand of being a "Conservative". When even European Conservatives try to distance themselves from the GOP these days, then you know you have strayed too far.
The day that Libertarians/Conservatives stand up and admit they screwed up on selective policies from Reagan and onwards is the day many people will start to respect the political movement. But right now, they are nothing but an ostridge with its head in the ground hoping no one will notice him and the large piece of crap he has laid on the food supply.
Confusion runs rampant in your post.
It was clear and concise. He nailed it...
I disagree that the Tea Partiers are in any way opposed to libertarianism (little 'L'). Libertarians have been flocking to the Tea Party rallies in noticable numbers and are backing Tea Party candidates as much as any other demographic. The GOP has been more 'liberal light' than conservative which is why we have a Tea Party movement. And because the Tea Party movement is so visible and vocal and has proved its power to effect outcomes in elections, many if not most GOP candidates are falling all over themselves to appear more attractive to Tea Partiers and win their endorsement.
The Tea Party is not a political party but draws from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and every other sub group--anybody who is sick of big, out-of-control, irresponsible, ineffective, and incompetent authoritarian government and who wants to return to the principles of freedom, self governance, and fiscal responsibility.
I disagree that the Tea Partiers are in any way opposed to libertarianism (little 'L'). Libertarians have been flocking to the Tea Party rallies in noticable numbers and are backing Tea Party candidates as much as any other demographic. The GOP has been more 'liberal light' than conservative which is why we have a Tea Party movement. And because the Tea Party movement is so visible and vocal and has proved its power to effect outcomes in elections, many if not most GOP candidates are falling all over themselves to appear more attractive to Tea Partiers and win their endorsement.
The Tea Party is not a political party but draws from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and every other sub group--anybody who is sick of big, out-of-control, irresponsible, ineffective, and incompetent authoritarian government and who wants to return to the principles of freedom, self governance, and fiscal responsibility.
What is Libertarian?
I disagree that the Tea Partiers are in any way opposed to libertarianism (little 'L'). Libertarians have been flocking to the Tea Party rallies in noticable numbers and are backing Tea Party candidates as much as any other demographic. The GOP has been more 'liberal light' than conservative which is why we have a Tea Party movement. And because the Tea Party movement is so visible and vocal and has proved its power to effect outcomes in elections, many if not most GOP candidates are falling all over themselves to appear more attractive to Tea Partiers and win their endorsement.
The Tea Party is not a political party but draws from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and every other sub group--anybody who is sick of big, out-of-control, irresponsible, ineffective, and incompetent authoritarian government and who wants to return to the principles of freedom, self governance, and fiscal responsibility.
Very well, said. Including your comments concerning the GOP. As a registered Republican, it bothers me they have morphed into something I don't recognize anymore.
Of course, someone will pop in, laugh, call us a bunch of Tea-Baggers, laugh again... and act like they made some monumental, game-changing statement.
I disagree that the Tea Partiers are in any way opposed to libertarianism (little 'L'). Libertarians have been flocking to the Tea Party rallies in noticable numbers and are backing Tea Party candidates as much as any other demographic.
The GOP has been more 'liberal light' than conservative which is why we have a Tea Party movement. And because the Tea Party movement is so visible and vocal and has proved its power to effect outcomes in elections, many if not most GOP candidates are falling all over themselves to appear more attractive to Tea Partiers and win their endorsement.
The Tea Party is not a political party but draws from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and every other sub group--anybody who is sick of big, out-of-control, irresponsible, ineffective, and incompetent authoritarian government and who wants to return to the principles of freedom, self governance, and fiscal responsibility.
What is Libertarian?
A fence sitter who has neither the courage nor conviction to stand for something.