What Kind of Libertarian Are You?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
282

[quote]pushharder wrote:

That point is certainly open to debate. You think the intent was for the Commerce Power to “vigorous.” I don’t.[/quote]

That isn’t the point. We can both disagree, that is fine. What you said - to strengthen your claim - was that your “un-vigorous” version of the Commerce Power was not only your version, but it is the version endorsed by the Founding Fathers. That’s false, and that is all I care about. That has been the point this entire time - you just won’t fess up to it and instead hide behind a tortured metaphor and cavilling.

This is the point, so read slowly and closely: your version of the Constitution - call it “emasculated”, call it anything you want, it matters not to me - is not supported by the Founding Fathers or by history.

The word “emasculate” has been less of an issue than what you have taken “emasculated” to mean in the context you used it - a version of the Constitution and the federal government of your own invention, not one that finds its roots in the Founding.

If that’s what “emasculated” means to you, then, no, the Founding Fathers did not advocate an “emasculated” federal government as you present it.

If you keep trying to pretend that your libertarian verison of the Constitution was the same version of the Founding Fathers (and thus, the “right” version), I will continue to show why you’re wrong and that such a claim remains incorrect.

The Ron Paul version of the Constitution is a new one, so let’s treat it as such and quit the foolishness of pretending that this version is somehow faithful to what the Founders had in mind.

283

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Diversionary rabbit trail. It doesn’t change what I’ve been saying.[/quote]

Uh yeah, it does. The very Founder you cite as supporting your version of the Constitution endorsed an exercise of government power that is direct defiance of your version of the Constitution. It changes exactly what you have been saying. Just because you don’t like it and were ignorant of it doesn’t mean it doesn’t undermine your argument.

It wasn’t mocking the 9th Amendment, Einstein - it was mocking your blowed up argument. The same individual that championed the 9th Amendment - your “vaunted” great brake on the “vigorous” government you fear - didn’t even think the 9th Amendment prohiited the enactment and institutionalization of a central bank under Congress’ powers.

284

[quote]thunderbolt23: wrote:Not sure I follow. I said the state is one of the (necessary) institutions that make up society - are you saying you don’t think a state should be one of these? That this isn’t possible - a state can’t be one of these institutions? Don’t let me misunderstand you.[/quote]No sir, sorry abut that. I was talking about being softened up by the very persuasive mental image of a sizable population of people rendered virtually helpless by circumstances beyond their control and then being told to participate without even the basic means to do so. That’s the train I always end up leaping from once I’m again reminded of who and what we are calling in to give them a boost. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to Detroit and maybe I’m allowing my immediate experience too much sway in my thinking, but if you could see what liberal compassion has done to this once proud mighty city man. I get real spooked real easy when people start talking about helping the downtrodden with government.[quote]thunderbolt23:When I say “wealth redistribution”, I mean a policy of trying to level income/wealth as a matter of “fairness” - that higher amounts of wealth are presumed to be ill-gotten (to some extent) and some of that wealth needs to be taken to give to those who have less, even if the people who have less have “enough” to make a living.[/quote]Obamanomics

[quote]thunderbolt23:Welfare for the poor is to use public resources to help people who don’t currently have the means to make a living and need assistance to make a basic minimum. The goal is not redistribution for redistribution’s sake, nor is it designed to correct an “imbalance” or “inequality” in wealth - the goal is to make sure our fellow citizens don’t slip through the cracks by not having the basic necessities and an opportunity to find a way out of welfare.[/quote]it’s not that I’m utterly averse to this idea in itself right outta the gate with no discussion possible. It’s that I can’t envision a scenario where it works as advertised and avoids becoming a self perpetuating engine of dependence. Some may argue that my example using Detroit is a bad implementation. Where are the good implementations?

288

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Horseshit. You brought up the Commerce Clause and just recently. Copy and paste my “version” where I said “it is the version endorsed by the Founding Fathers.”[/quote]

I asked for some historical support for your version of an “emasculated” federal government, and you replied:

An emasculated state (federal) is exactly what our Founding Fathers created. THERE is my historical reference/argument.

289

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I’m frankly surprised you would lie about what I have been saying. I did not expect dishonesty from you. What you’re doing is deliberate obfuscation. Learn sumthin new everyday, I guess.[/quote]

An emasculated state (federal) is exactly what our Founding Fathers created. THERE is my historical reference/argument.

290

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I never mentioned a central bank. This is what I mean by your dishonesty. I never once mentioned it but you cite it as though I did. I have made no claims about a central bank being out of bounds, so your words, “direct defiance of your version of the Constitution” ring hollow, squirt.[/quote]

So, is a central bank out of bounds?

293

And, Push - give me a break. You know damn well I haven’t lied about anything you’ve said. If I’ve misunderstood you, no problem, just explain what you meant and tell me where I got it wrong. But enough with the whining that I have deliberately tried to do something I haven’t. Grown men can rumble without taking it personally - or at least, they should.

295

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I don’t like to go here because I have always respected you in the past but you are nothing but an ignorant dumbass if you see the Commerce Clause in that quote. I mean a Pittbull type dumbass. Are you drunk?[/quote]

What are you even talking about? I used the Commerce Clause as an example (I even said, “for example”) where the Constitution textually affords a Congress pretty broad permission to have fairly “vigorous” powers in the area of commerce. If you were right about “emasculation”, my argument goes, then that broad grant of power wouldn’t be there, therefore, your argument is on pretty shakey grounds right out of the gate.

And? If you disagree, refute it.

296

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Diversionary rabbit trail. It doesn’t change what I’ve been saying.[/quote]

Uh yeah, it does. The very Founder you cite as supporting your version of the Constitution endorsed an exercise of government power that is direct defiance of your version of the Constitution. It changes exactly what you have been saying. Just because you don’t like it and were ignorant of it doesn’t mean it doesn’t undermine your argument.

It wasn’t mocking the 9th Amendment, Einstein - it was mocking your blowed up argument. The same individual that championed the 9th Amendment - your “vaunted” great brake on the “vigorous” government you fear - didn’t even think the 9th Amendment prohiited the enactment and institutionalization of a central bank under Congress’ powers.[/quote]

Chest–beating aside, it is unfortunate for push that you are correct in every substantial detail.

In summary,
–the Constitution was the chosen remedy for a truly emasculated government, that under the Articles

–all those we now revere among the Founders were for it–testicles intact-- for that reason. (e.g., Washington who wrote and said nothing about it publicly, avidly endorsed the change; Jefferson was off elsewhere, and relied on Madison for his info.)

–While Hamilton insisted on the use of implied powers during the debates on Assumption and the Bank, some forget it was Madison, and not Hamilton, who wrote those sections of the Federalist which endorsed the implied powers of Congress and the Federal government. You allude to this in you last paragraph. It proved embarassing and unworkable to disavow implied powers, whether in Madison’s first objections to the Bank, or Jefferson’s entire presidency.

This little tiff between tb and Push would end if we take that word “emasculate” out of the discussion.

The Constitution was not, as someone said, a suicide pact. At a minimum, it projected unity abroad and protected small government and minority opinion at home. There is nothing in it about orchiectomy, gelding, or neutering. Limitation is a different concept than castration.

297

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Your above posts speak for themselves.

YOU brought up the Commerce Clause and insinuated I did.

YOU brought up the central bank and insinuated I did.

YOU claimed my “version” of an emasculated government was that of a weak, ineffective one.

YOU deliberately contorted my metaphor of the gelding.

YOU implied I was a Ron Paul guy.

You’re dishonest, pure and simple.[/quote]

Good Lord, I didn’t peg you for the whiney, obfuscating type. If I said something that needs correcting, correct it. Was I wrong about your take on a central bank being out of bounds? No problem, correct me. Instruct me as to what you think. Take a stance. Explain it. Refute me. I’m a big boy, I can take it.

Instead, we get a smokescreen and a bunch of tortured metaphors and awshuckiness: "Look here, what you need pad’ner is a gelding instead of a stallion - you don’t want a stallion, because England is a stallion, got it honcho? And geldings get the job done just fine but don’t try and hump the fillies, buckeye.

Oh, what job does the gelding do exactly, you ask, muchacho? You mean you want to know that actual contours of the scope of government I am talking about? Listen, it ain’t the job of a stallion, because we know stallions got big, black balls, frisky. That’s about all I got on what a gelding does, tiger."

How about instead you just tell me what you think. The central bank question is a good place to start. Is one of the legitimate powers of the properly “emasculated” federal government the ability to create a central bank that regulates credit and money? Yes or no.

298

@ DR. Skeptix.
Yes I got our basement drain cleared. This has nothing to do with anything, but you asked and I never got around to answering.