[quote]UB07 wrote:
With names like Paul (father and son), Schiff, Kokesh, etc. out there, Sarah Pailin is the last thing we need. The fact that you are pimping her like this shows that you are an intellectual child. Also, you are a racist and a homophobe. [/quote]
Who me? Where’d ya get that? Take yer meds, twerp.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
…that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized…
[/quote]
Let’s talk about “wherever the end is required.” What does that mean, Doc?[/quote]
Its in the “but we really, really want to”- clause of the constitution.
[/quote]
I guess Madison’s axiom is not among your “axioms,” but it does help to read him in context.
I understand there is a fine translation of The Federalist into Navaho-Slovak. Let me know when you have completed it.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
…that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized…
[/quote]
Let’s talk about “wherever the end is required.” What does that mean, Doc?[/quote]
Its in the “but we really, really want to”- clause of the constitution.
[/quote]
I guess Madison’s axiom is not among your “axioms,” but it does help to read him in context.
I understand there is a fine translation of The Federalist into Navaho-Slovak. Let me know when you have completed it.
[/quote]
What?
There is the “we really, really want to”- clause, and the “well, it just stands to reason clause”, and the “we are a democracy we can do whatever the fuck we want”-clause and the “unless I play ball I wont be a federal supreme judge”-clause.
You are right, the Navaho-Slovak edition seems to cover the essentials.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
(Madison text, Federalist)
And it will be the ideologically pure Ron Paulistas who will ensure the continuance of a liberal spendthrift government for the next twenty years.[/quote]
Excellent stuff, Doc, as always. Madison was no anarchist and understood well that the Constitution granted powers and expected those powers to be, amazingly, used by the federal government. Also, John S.'s hero Madison, let’s not forget, changed his mind on a national bank and asked Congress for the Second Bank of the United States. Maybe John S. will want to castigate his cited “libertarian” authority as a proper “Fascist!” and have a good cry.
Further to the point, the first substantive law passed by the First Congress was a tariff, despite the neo-Jacobin’s insistence that the Commerce Clause could have have possibly permitted such anti-free market positive regulation.
Also, the First Congress passed the Indian Intercourse Act, which - chuckles aside - regulated how trade would be conducted with Indians. One of the provisions? You had to get licensed by the government in order to trade. That is good, old-fashioned meddlin’ with the free market - standing in my way to trade anywhere I want with whomever I damn well please - who knew the First Congress was a bunch of statist, socialist Fascists?
So, if John S. and his bozo guru are right, the First Congress of the United States, acting pursuant to the Constitution that was just ratified, were legislating in contravention to their constitutional authority. Preposterous.
Even Thomas Jefferson - the plaster saint of Founding “libertarianism” - signed the Embargo Act.
This is not to say there was never controversial legislation, or that just because an early Congress passed a law meant that it was automatically blessed by constitutional lights - but it was (and is) clear that everyone thought Congress, via the Commerce Clause, had a right to create positive regulations that promoted commerce. This isn’t in dispute, but for the Ron Paul revisionist idiots.
John S.'s fundamental problem is that he instantly sees any regulation of commerce as equivalent to the government taking over and running Goldman Sachs. This is nonsense. Any sane person recognizes there is a spectrum of regulatory activity and that regulations can have different goals. A federal law that insures that foods and drugs are labeled correctly if being sold throughout the US - a law designed to improve informational transparency on goods and help prevent harmful products from reaching the consumers (avoiding difficult mass tort lawsuits), thus theoretically improving commerce - is not the same as a law making the federal government take over private industry.
Most people know this. The Paulnuts do not. Theirs is a constitution of their own making, exactly like the far-left-liberals. They ignore history, start with an ideological conclusion they like, and then, working backwards, demand that the constitution is the unalloyed instrument that commands that ideology in its purest form.
And this is why they are so problematic for limited government advocates. So extreme and stupid and brutish is their ideology, and so divorced from fact and history that potential converts to a limited government point of view - ones who have even a basic understanding of civics - dismiss their quackery as they would an annoying religion-peddler on your doorstep.
It’s no wonder that social-democratic soft-statism has been selling so well over recent years. John S. and our other “li-buh-turr-eans” around here and their wretchedly extreme ideology don’t do anything but turn people off from the concept of liberty, limited government, and federalism.
I don’t want to paint with to broad a brush, as there are many kinds of libertarians, but I must say, I have come to loathe what passes for libertarianism anymore. They are as ignorant as the socialists.
[/quote]
Heh, You think you’re pretty smart don’t you? I mean not only smart, but maybe brilliant? Wait wait, no I’m sure the word is there, it’s on the tip of my tounge, oh yes divine, you are indeed divine in your wisdom and intelligence.
TB, even if there was some good info in any one of your posts, I just can’t get past the “talk down to me” way in which you communicate. I mean and this is coming form a person who has debated politics for a long time on these forums where things like that are regular forms of communication. You just seem to take it to a new level.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Heh, You think you’re pretty smart don’t you? I mean not only smart, but maybe brilliant? Wait wait, no I’m sure the word is there, it’s on the tip of my tounge, oh yes divine, you are indeed divine in your wisdom and intelligence. [/quote]
Not really - at no point have I advertised myself as smarter than anyone. I have only one advantage - I am willing and able to actually try and learn something about a topic before I opine on it. That’s it. The same information I have is available to anyone else with a public library card or an internet connection - there is nothing particularly “brilliant” about availing myself of it.
But, I am reading through my post above, and I don’t see much evidence of what you are complaining about, in any event.
If the tone bothers you, I can understand - the problem, as I see it (certainly through biased eyes), is not that I am better than anyone, but the quality of the debate has gotten worse, and I simply don’t have the patience for it any more.
You are an old soul in the PWI forums - and I’d expect you feel similarly that the quality of exchanges has dropped dramatically.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I mean and this is coming form a person who has debated politics for a long time on these forums where things like that are regular forms of communication. You just seem to take it to a new level.[/quote]
And one other note - if your complaint is, at its base, stemming from my treatment of Ron Paul acolytes, which you may or may not be, there is nothing on my end to apologize for and that isn’t my problem to fix. Respect is like anything else - it ain’t free - and these bozos have yet to earn a dime of it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I mean and this is coming form a person who has debated politics for a long time on these forums where things like that are regular forms of communication. You just seem to take it to a new level.[/quote]
And one other note - if your complaint is, at its base, stemming from my treatment of Ron Paul acolytes, which you may or may not be, there is nothing on my end to apologize for and that isn’t my problem to fix. Respect is like anything else - it ain’t free - and these bozos have yet to earn a dime of it.[/quote]
I just feel like anyone who wants smaller less intrusive government is obviously going to hold Ron Paul in high regard as he is the closest thing any of us has had that resembles a politician who also wants a smaller government. And while there may be many flaws with small government, I think to “debate” People who favor small government by calling them Paulnuts, or any of the other derogatory laced comments they generally recieve, it cheapens the debate and any positives one could have gleaned from your points. Sure Ron Paul might not be the savior of the United States, but he is a great step in the right direction, at least from my point of view. So while I will never probably be able to debate anything and call it IDEAL politically speaking, I think things need to be always heading in a better direction.
I guess there is some emotional attachment to Ron Paul, but the reality is that it feels like you are just dismissing the small government movement just because. And at one point I thought you had some libertarian leanings.
I’m also not saying I agree with everything John S says, but for the most part he does a good job at communicating and debating on the libertarian plank.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I just feel like anyone who wants smaller less intrusive government is obviously going to hold Ron Paul in high regard as he is the closest thing any of us has had that resembles a politician who also wants a smaller government. [/quote]
And this is the disconnect - to your point above, of course not. I want smaller, less intrusive government, and I loathe Ron Paul. I do so on the basis that not only do I disagree with a number of his ideas, and I disagree on the degree of some of his ideas, I believe he actually hurts the limited government “movement”. You make a fundamental mistake with your assumption.
I had a sense that your primary issue was my attitude toward followers of Ron Paul.
And I disagree whole-heartedly. Nothing sets the “limited government movement” back in terms of bona fide realization than Ron Paul and his legion of highly uneducated followers.
The “uneducated” bit isn’t a naked insult - it is part of the problem. Trying to make the case for “limited government” with bad facts, bad history, and a Constitution that doesn’t exist undermines the credibility of the case. The idea is to change people’s minds to consider a “limited government” approach - and you can’t convince them with the Ron Paul pitch and its bad facts and worse ideological purity.
How can I be dismissing the “small government movement” by complaining that the problem with the Ron Paul gang is that they [i]are hurting the small government movement from being realized?[/b] This continues to be part of the problem - you don’t read what I am saying correctly. To be clear: (1) I support limited government, and (2) I think the Ron Paul phenomenon actually sets the limited government movement back.
And me, libertarian? Not really. I am, I guess, a conservative - an Old Liberal who has a conservative view of the world. Libertarian? Not so much - I disagree with the most basic, Rousseau-inspired fundament of the whole philosophy.
I don’t dislike John S. - but he couldn’t even understand basic arguments. Passion does not equal logic.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I just feel like anyone who wants smaller less intrusive government is obviously going to hold Ron Paul in high regard as he is the closest thing any of us has had that resembles a politician who also wants a smaller government. [/quote]
And this is the disconnect - to your point above, of course not. I want smaller, less intrusive government, and I loathe Ron Paul. I do so on the basis that not only do I disagree with a number of his ideas, and I disagree on the degree of some of his ideas, I believe he actually hurts the limited government “movement”. You make a fundamental mistake with your assumption.
I had a sense that your primary issue was my attitude toward followers of Ron Paul.
And I disagree whole-heartedly. Nothing sets the “limited government movement” back in terms of bona fide realization than Ron Paul and his legion of highly uneducated followers.
The “uneducated” bit isn’t a naked insult - it is part of the problem. Trying to make the case for “limited government” with bad facts, bad history, and a Constitution that doesn’t exist undermines the credibility of the case. The idea is to change people’s minds to consider a “limited government” approach - and you can’t convince them with the Ron Paul pitch and its bad facts and worse ideological purity.
How can I be dismissing the “small government movement” by complaining that the problem with the Ron Paul gang is that they [i]are hurting the small government movement from being realized?[/b] This continues to be part of the problem - you don’t read what I am saying correctly. To be clear: (1) I support limited government, and (2) I think the Ron Paul phenomenon actually sets the limited government movement back.
And me, libertarian? Not really. I am, I guess, a conservative - an Old Liberal who has a conservative view of the world. Libertarian? Not so much - I disagree with the most basic, Rousseau-inspired fundament of the whole philosophy.
I don’t dislike John S. - but he couldn’t even understand basic arguments. Passion does not equal logic.[/quote]
You are really doing what you claim the “Paulbots” are doing.
You are a sectarian.
What is more realistic, to inspire strong emotions for liberty and less government intrusion than to educate people about the finer points of laissez faire philosophy and its limits?
You may not like it, but Paul, Beck and Stossel is what the popular libertian movement looks like in the US and you can either get on board or dream of a world that is even more utopian than a libertarian one.
Also, libertarianism is Rousseau inspired?
Please elaborate.
Is the dislike of Ron Paul rooted in his wanting to audit the Fed? Can you (TB) summarize your reasons for disliking his ideas?
Yea, I don’t get it. Explain why his movement is setting small government back? Explain how someone like my self, someone who was HAPPY about invading Iraq and Afghanistan, a hardcore republican back in 99 till 2005 or 2006 could have about faced and voted for Bob Barr in the 2008 elections? I had never even heard of a libertarian, and yet, peice by peice I started hearing about ron paul, I started listening and watching youtube clips and it made sense. It certainly made a lot more sense than anything I was currently hearing from BOTH parties.
And based on the Millions of people who supported Ron Paul in his primary run, many many of whom were newcomers to the political realm, and many who were new to the small government idea, I fail to see how his brand of small government has done anything but give whoever was there before him a very large lump of wet clay in which to mold thier future members or whatever.
Brother seriously, I’m not trying to just needlessly hate on you, but if you think we don’t know what the hell we are talking about, then educate us, don’t just ridicule us. If your ideas are good, people will listen to you. I know I would.
V
[quote]orion wrote:
You are really doing what you claim the “Paulbots” are doing.
You are a sectarian.[/quote]
Incorrect - I suffer from too much pragmatism to be any kind of sectarian.
This makes little sense toward the end, but I have no need to “get on board” with them - I don’t favor a “libertarian movement”, and have never said I have.
[quote]Also, libertarianism is Rousseau inspired?
Please elaborate.[/quote]
Rousseau’s base idea was that Men were good by nature needed to liberated from society’s unfair restraints. Rousseau thought that property was one of those “restraints”, but the impulse was essentially the same as the laissez-faire philosophy.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
You are really doing what you claim the “Paulbots” are doing.
You are a sectarian.[/quote]
Incorrect - I suffer from too much pragmatism to be any kind of sectarian.
This makes little sense toward the end, but I have no need to “get on board” with them - I don’t favor a “libertarian movement”, and have never said I have.
[quote]Also, libertarianism is Rousseau inspired?
Please elaborate.[/quote]
Rousseau’s base idea was that Men were good by nature needed to liberated from society’s unfair restraints. Rousseau thought that property was one of those “restraints”, but the impulse was essentially the same as the laissez-faire philosophy.[/quote]
That is not true, because Rousseau believed that the masses, if they were only free from the tyranny of the aristocracy, could do no wrong.
He believed in what amounts to unlimited democracy, not a small government.
The modern nation state owes at least something to Rousseau, but Locke was the almost the anti-Rousseau.
As far you not being a libertarian, you dont have to be but we are you natural allies. If you want a society where you can be as conservatove as you want to be it is with us. With liberals all you get is less and less room too breathe.
The only trick is to divorce your private life from your public one. Whatever you think is right might not be right for me and vice versa, but, if you simply leave us alone and do not try to coerce us into your brand of conservatism nobody will care what you do in your own home.
Its either that or a constant power struggle over who gets to handle the gun called “government”.
[quote]orion wrote:
As far you not being a libertarian, you dont have to be but we are you natural allies.
[/quote]
No, we’re not allies. Well, I’m obviously not speaking for Thunderbolt. But to me, no we’re not allies. If anything, Libertarians now bother me more than liberals.
Want a smaller, leaner government? Self reliance and responsibility? Social conservatism is the answer. Otherwise, it’s, “Social liberalism? Sure! But, I’ll pass on the fiscal conservatism. It’s cradle to grave safety nets for me, thanks!”
Everyone wants to be ‘free’ (or, follow base instincts) to do as they wish. Not so much when it comes to shouldering the consequences of their ‘freedom’ all by their lonesome. Mix in the right to vote, or a “people’s revolution” in the absence of the vote, and you’ll end up with a can’t pay the bills-nanny state eventually.
[quote]orion wrote:
That is not true, because Rousseau believed that the masses, if they were only free from the tyranny of the aristocracy, could do no wrong.[/quote]
Rousseau’s core belief was the “state of nature” idea that Man is shackled by society and needed to be freed from anything that stood in the way of that freedom - the very animating force of libertarianism.
I don’t disagree to a certain extent, and that is exactly what a libertarian’s “market society” that commoditizes everything is in its own form - pure, unadulterated herd instinct. Different from Rousseau’s unifying democracy? Somewhat, but more similar than not.
[quote]As far you not being a libertarian, you dont have to be but we are you natural allies. If you want a society where you can be as conservatove as you want to be it is with us. With liberals all you get is less and less room too breathe.
The only trick is to divorce your private life from your public one. Whatever you think is right might not be right for me and vice versa, but, if you simply leave us alone and do not try to coerce us into your brand of conservatism nobody will care what you do in your own home.
Its either that or a constant power struggle over who gets to handle the gun called “government”.[/quote]
You highlight the disconnect perfectly - conservatives don’t subscribe to the view that “what is right”, at certain baseline levels, is individually determined or negotiable under a holy ethic of “do whatever you want, as long as you leave each other alone”.
Such an ethic causes the disintegration of the very things that hold civilization together - social institutions that preserve liberty, government being one of them - precisely what a conservative is trying to conserve.
Conservatives believe that liberty exists in direction proportion to conditions of virtue and require the preservation of the very things that make liberty possible, and these “things” are not situational. To that end, conservatives do believe in some level of restraint of atomized individualism - the difference is, they just don’t believe that government be the only institution doing all of that restraining.
There is your difference. Conservatives believe that without certain moral conditions, liberty evaporates. Libertarians have no use for moral conditions, which in their mind, inhibits liberty.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
No, we’re not allies. Well, I’m obviously not speaking for Thunderbolt. But to me, no we’re not allies. If anything, Libertarians now bother me more than liberals. [/quote]
A very interesting point, one I am afraid to say I have to agree with. I once saw “libertarians” as somewhat of fellow travelers - now, I find a good deal of them as irritating and frivolous as far-left-wingers.
[quote]Want a smaller, leaner government? Self reliance and responsibility? Social conservatism is the answer. Otherwise, it’s, “Social liberalism? Sure! But, I’ll pass on the fiscal conservatism. It’s cradle to grave safety nets for me, thanks!”
Everyone wants to be ‘free’ (or, follow base instincts) to do as they wish. Not so much when it comes to shouldering the consequences of their ‘freedom’ all by their lonesome. Mix in the right to vote, or a “people’s revolution” in the absence of the vote, and you’ll end up with a can’t pay the bills-nanny state eventually.[/quote]
I think this is an excellent observation - the ethic of “follow your base instinct” typically leads to some very unfortunate consequences which, humans being what they have always been, simply won’t permit people to truly suffer the consequences of their choices.
After all, the nanny-state is, at its core, this impulse writ large, and built to save people from themselves - which only comes as a result of them failing miserably and destroying their lives through their bad choices (subsidized by social liberalism’s encouragement).
Does an adherence to “social liberalism” inevitably lead to the nanny-state? By gum, Sloth - I think you’ve raised the question (and suggested an answer) quite well.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
As far you not being a libertarian, you dont have to be but we are you natural allies.
[/quote]
No, we’re not allies. Well, I’m obviously not speaking for Thunderbolt. But to me, no we’re not allies. If anything, Libertarians now bother me more than liberals.
Want a smaller, leaner government? Self reliance and responsibility? Social conservatism is the answer. Otherwise, it’s, “Social liberalism? Sure! But, I’ll pass on the fiscal conservatism. It’s cradle to grave safety nets for me, thanks!”
Everyone wants to be ‘free’ (or, follow base instincts) to do as they wish. Not so much when it comes to shouldering the consequences of their ‘freedom’ all by their lonesome. Mix in the right to vote, or a “people’s revolution” in the absence of the vote, and you’ll end up with a can’t pay the bills-nanny state eventually.[/quote]
Well you will have to understand that there will be no “conservative values” as long as conservatives try to legislate morality.
Some of this stuff is simply unacceptable and most libertarians cannot vote for it.
However, we are the only allies you have when it comes to cutting government spending and that is what it comes down to for both libertarians and conservatives.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
That is not true, because Rousseau believed that the masses, if they were only free from the tyranny of the aristocracy, could do no wrong.[/quote]
Rousseau’s core belief was the “state of nature” idea that Man is shackled by society and needed to be freed from anything that stood in the way of that freedom - the very animating force of libertarianism.
I don’t disagree to a certain extent, and that is exactly what a libertarian’s “market society” that commoditizes everything is in its own form - pure, unadulterated herd instinct. Different from Rousseau’s unifying democracy? Somewhat, but more similar than not.
[quote]As far you not being a libertarian, you dont have to be but we are you natural allies. If you want a society where you can be as conservatove as you want to be it is with us. With liberals all you get is less and less room too breathe.
The only trick is to divorce your private life from your public one. Whatever you think is right might not be right for me and vice versa, but, if you simply leave us alone and do not try to coerce us into your brand of conservatism nobody will care what you do in your own home.
Its either that or a constant power struggle over who gets to handle the gun called “government”.[/quote]
You highlight the disconnect perfectly - conservatives don’t subscribe to the view that “what is right”, at certain baseline levels, is individually determined or negotiable under a holy ethic of “do whatever you want, as long as you leave each other alone”.
Such an ethic causes the disintegration of the very things that hold civilization together - social institutions that preserve liberty, government being one of them - precisely what a conservative is trying to conserve.
Conservatives believe that liberty exists in direction proportion to conditions of virtue and require the preservation of the very things that make liberty possible, and these “things” are not situational. To that end, conservatives do believe in some level of restraint of atomized individualism - the difference is, they just don’t believe that government be the only institution doing all of that restraining.
There is your difference. Conservatives believe that without certain moral conditions, liberty evaporates. Libertarians have no use for moral conditions, which in their mind, inhibits liberty.[/quote]
It is true that we are more Lockean than Hobbean in that we state that men can basically rule themselves, but that is not due to a naive belief in them being naturally “good” beings.
It is more like, since we are all drawn to certain vices it really does not make sense to couple that with a monopoly on coercive power. That means being flawed on steroids.
Also, Bastiat answered one of your points, so it is time time to post it yet again:
[quote]
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. [/quote]
Insofar you share something with socialists, you think that it has to be done by the state or it wont be done at all.
That is not our position. In fact we believe that government regulations crowd out private intitutions in that area too. It robs the people of the will, the resources and the know how to build the institutions that make a society work on their own. Instead of ever changing and adapting voluntary associations we get coercive, rigid structures that teach two things:
How to bow to the mighty and that morality flows from the state.
As for the market being pure unadulterated herd instinct. Well yes, it can be. That is not the same as a democratic coercive state though because you are not forced to be part of that herd. In fact the market will also provide for your more sophisticated needs if you are willing and able to pay for it. Democracies wont.
So, while democracies bring everything down to the lowest denominator, in a free market people voting with their wallets do not necessarily force you to partake in their decisions.
Also, what you call “herd instinct” is very often the voluntary association that is needed for a civil society. It seems to be the case that the market is at least as capable of organizing the masses as the state is, only cheaper and less bloody.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I think this is an excellent observation - the ethic of “follow your base instinct” typically leads to some very unfortunate consequences which, humans being what they have always been, simply won’t permit people to truly suffer the consequences of their choices.
After all, the nanny-state is, at its core, this impulse writ large, and built to save people from themselves - which only comes as a result of them failing miserably and destroying their lives through their bad choices (subsidized by social liberalism’s encouragement).
Does an adherence to “social liberalism” inevitably lead to the nanny-state? By gum, Sloth - I think you’ve raised the question (and suggested an answer) quite well.[/quote]
That is not the core of libertarianism.
The core is to embrace failure, to make mistakes and to learn from them.
Therefore you have to be free to make your own mistakes and then reality will whip most people into shape pretty quickly because they are immediately confronted with the results of their own actions.
It does not even make sense to insulate people from third parties mistakes, as most conservatives seem to believe, if the people making the mistakes must be part of a set of voluntary networks without any entitlements whatsoever being an asshole makes for a miserable existence, i.e. shunning is quite effective.
[quote]orion wrote:
The core [of libertarianism] is to embrace failure, to make mistakes and to learn from them.
[/quote]
Worded another way: One major tenet of libertarianism is personal responsibility