Glenn Beck Hates YOU!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
63

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

In a technical sense, libertarianism and authoritarianism are polar opposites.

I can say government is a necessary evil, and be a libertarian. I think I can say I’d prefer most of this necessary evil to be at as local a level as possible.

But I don’t think I can call myself a libertarian if I endorse and support authoritarian policies, just because I support them being implemented at the state and local level, rather than the national.

Just like I can be a communist, but believe that government should basically function at the local level i.e., communal property, communal ownership, but all the power rests at the state and local level. Doesn’t make one any less a communist.

Promoting authoritarian policy at the state and local level still makes you an authoritarian. [/quote]

You are missunderstanding what that bill ment, it just reenforced the 10th amendment. If you support the 10th amendment then you support the bill. Doesn’t mean he has to agree with everything in the bill but the states have the rights to do all those things.

See in our country the way things work are at the state level, if one wants to have a very weak state government then they can move somewhere that supports that. If they want a nanny state government then they can move to a state that supports that. Our system allows for the greatest voting ability possible, the ability to vote with our feet.

64

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

In a technical sense, libertarianism and authoritarianism are polar opposites.

I can say government is a necessary evil, and be a libertarian. I think I can say I’d prefer most of this necessary evil to be at as local a level as possible.

But I don’t think I can call myself a libertarian if I endorse and support authoritarian policies, just because I support them being implemented at the state and local level, rather than the national.

Just like I can be a communist, but believe that government should basically function at the local level i.e., communal property, communal ownership, but all the power rests at the state and local level. Doesn’t make one any less a communist.

Promoting authoritarian policy at the state and local level still makes you an authoritarian. [/quote]

You are missunderstanding what that bill ment, it just reenforced the 10th amendment. If you support the 10th amendment then you support the bill. Doesn’t mean he has to agree with everything in the bill but the states have the rights to do all those things.[/quote]

What am I misunderstanding in the bill?

Establish official religions, regulate the exercise of religion, regulate consensual sex between adults, and ban abortion (I’m sure you disagree with the SC decision that made this protected, but that’s not the point) are things the constitution protects against.

…and even if it didn’t, it would be the Libertarian position, that government should stay out of it, even if it’s your state capitol controlling your life, instead of DC. It’s still government getting into your buisness where it doesn’t belong.

I think libertarianism comes (or can come) into conflict with being a strict constitutionalism.
The constitution was written by classical liberals, which means (as stated by them) we have all these inherent rights, too many to enumerate. That was the argument against the Bill of Rights: that it would limit our rights as individuals by only enumerating some of them, allowing it to be argued that those not enumerated, were not rights.

A strict constitutionalist can take the position that our rights are only those protected explicitly int he document, and that authoritarian state and local governments ought to be able to pass all kinds of restrictive and controlling laws.

A libertarian would argue those laws are always wrong, and violate our basic rights to be free from all but a few necessary aspects of government (and the communal will of others).

65

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< I do know by his own admission he has “evolved” in his political thinking in the libertarian direction over the past 10 years or so. Much as I have.[/quote]

Which is admirable if in the direction of truth. Evolve? I metamorphosed from my late teens to late twenties. If I had some pictures of myself back then you people would simply not believe this could possibly be the guy writing all these conservative posts.

66

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

What am I misunderstanding in the bill?

Establish official religions, regulate the exercise of religion, regulate consensual sex between adults, and ban abortion (I’m sure you disagree with the SC decision that made this protected, but that’s not the point) are things the constitution protects against.

…and even if it didn’t, it would be the Libertarian position, that government should stay out of it, even if it’s your state capitol controlling your life, instead of DC. It’s still government getting into your buisness where it doesn’t belong.

I think libertarianism comes (or can come) into conflict with being a strict constitutionalism.
The constitution was written by classical liberals, which means (as stated by them) we have all these inherent rights, too many to enumerate. That was the argument against the Bill of Rights: that it would limit our rights as individuals by only enumerating some of them, allowing it to be argued that those not enumerated, were not rights.

A strict constitutionalist can take the position that our rights are only those protected explicitly int he document, and that authoritarian state and local governments ought to be able to pass all kinds of restrictive and controlling laws.

A libertarian would argue those laws are always wrong, and violate our basic rights to be free from all but a few necessary aspects of government (and the communal will of others).[/quote]

The Federal government has to respect those rights, now on the state level you can oppose them. I support that bill but if my state tried to establish most of those I would reject them.

67

[quote]John S. wrote:
The Federal government has to respect those rights, now on the state level you can oppose them. I support that bill but if my state tried to establish most of those I would reject them. [/quote]

How could you not, as a libertarian, categorically reject them? And reject the idea that the state has the right to enforce them on you?

If the state’s don’t respect my individual rights, I’m happy the federal government will step into defend them. Local control tends to be better than federal, but that’s not necessarily true. When state’s violate my rights, the Fed should be there to protect them.

68

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
The Federal government has to respect those rights, now on the state level you can oppose them. I support that bill but if my state tried to establish most of those I would reject them. [/quote]

How could you not, as a libertarian, categorically reject them? And reject the idea that the state has the right to enforce them on you?

If the state’s don’t respect my individual rights, I’m happy the federal government will step into defend them. Local control tends to be better than federal, but that’s not necessarily true. When state’s violate my rights, the Fed should be there to protect them.[/quote]

The states are in control, not the federal government. A state has every right to be communist, socialist, Capitalist.

The federal goverment has very little say, If a state wants a state religion they can have it, if a state wants to be socialist they can be. The Federal government has to be libertarian but that does not mean the states have to be. Its all about seperation of powers.

71

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
When talking about brain dead, you can not leave out the so called CONSEVATIVE that repeats everything their heroes (LIMPDICK-BECK) say.[/quote]

What a riot!! Would you prefer he had a HARD DICK Pittbull? [/quote]

I have a hard dick thankyou:)

72

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
When talking about brain dead, you can not leave out the so called CONSEVATIVE that repeats everything their heroes (LIMPDICK-BECK) say.[/quote]

What a riot!! Would you prefer he had a HARD DICK Pittbull? [/quote]

Notice he didn’t misspell “limpdick”? Der bee sum stuff about which he truly is knowledgeable.[/quote]

phuck yew asswhole :slight_smile:

73

[quote]John S. wrote:
The states are in control, not the federal government. A state has every right to be communist, socialist, Capitalist.

The federal goverment has very little say, If a state wants a state religion they can have it, if a state wants to be socialist they can be. The Federal government has to be libertarian but that does not mean the states have to be. Its all about seperation of powers.[/quote]

How do you get that state’s have any rights? People have rights, state governments have power not specifically delegated to the federal government. Doesn’t mean states as entities unto themselves have any rights. States don’t have rights, corporations don’t have rights, institutions don’t have rights: people have rights.

74

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
The states are in control, not the federal government. A state has every right to be communist, socialist, Capitalist.

The federal goverment has very little say, If a state wants a state religion they can have it, if a state wants to be socialist they can be. The Federal government has to be libertarian but that does not mean the states have to be. Its all about seperation of powers.[/quote]

How do you get that state’s have any rights? People have rights, state governments have power not specifically delegated to the federal government. Doesn’t mean states as entities unto themselves have any rights. States don’t have rights, corporations don’t have rights, institutions don’t have rights: people have rights.[/quote]

one of the problems is that corporations have the same rights as you and I , with none of the liabilities

75

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

one of the problems is that corporations have the same rights as you and I , with none of the liabilities
[/quote]

Do you believe that governments grant rights to us or that they are inalienable human rights?

I think it’s a huge problem that “the government” (the people running it, at all levels and in all branches) want to act like institutions of any kind, public or private, have rights the same way you or I do. It’s outrageous and an insult to my humanity.

76

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

one of the problems is that corporations have the same rights as you and I , with none of the liabilities
[/quote]

Do you believe that governments grant rights to us or that they are inalienable human rights?

I think it’s a huge problem that “the government” (the people running it, at all levels and in all branches) want to act like institutions of any kind, public or private, have rights the same way you or I do. It’s outrageous and an insult to my humanity.[/quote]

I believe both, I am a criminal because my Gov does not believe I have rights that i feel I do