What Kind of Libertarian Are You?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
302

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[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.[/quote]

It’s not unfortunate for me because I didn’t get into details. I made a broad statement about limited government and attached a metaphor that Bolt didn’t want to understand. He was insistent on quibbling. It was his mission du jour.[quote]

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.[/quote]

I already clarified that more than once. My emasculation statement was not made in regards to the A of C. It was made in comparison to the European power(s) who ruled much of the world and all of the colonies.

Doc, did you skip some of my posts?[quote]

(e.g., Washington who wrote and said nothing about it publicly, avidly endorsed the change; Jefferson was off elsewhere, [/quote]

France.[quote]

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.[/quote]

Again, I didn’t get into specifics. Bolt attacked me as though I had.[quote]

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

Not necessarily. I did not just indiscriminately and singularly use the term. I used it and then described what I meant by it. And what I didn’t mean by it. He jumped the shark and twisted my intent. He knows he did it deliberately because he’s too smart for it to have been otherwise. Either that or he speed reads and does a poor job of comprehending. [quote]

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.
[/quote]

I see even you don’t understand where I was coming from. Oh well, I will strive to do better next time.[/quote]

Understood on every pitch. I shouldn’t play umpire; my eyesight is poor in dim light.

303

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I don’t have an answer for you on the central bank. Many at the time (and now) supported it and many didn’t. The supporters won out til Jackson came along and then again years later.

I’m just not smart enough to know for sure where I stand.

BTW, Madison switched his initial allegiance from the Federalists to the antis. Interesting.[/quote]

On Madison and “switching:” It was not so much a switch. The parties had not coalesced until the fight over the Assumption of the Debt and the National Bank, much to Hamilton’s surprise and Washington’s disgust. Madison–to say nothing of Jefferson–was somewhat elastic on questions of practicality and idealism.

The Bank expired in 1811, and Madison and the Democrat-Republicans were delighted. So was his aging Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin (whose name you know well from local geography.) But it was Gallatin who shortly switched, and convinced the malleable Madison to back the Second Bank, sheerly out of practicality; there was no practical way to fund the country, let alone the War of 1812, without it.

304

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Here’s where you were wrong. I made several general statements about the limits of federal power.

You immediately went to anarchy in Africa[/quote]

I wasn’t wrong on this - it was my example and my argument.

I’m not wrong on this either - I used it as a counterexample to your reliance on Madison and the 9th Amendment in support of your argument.

Can’t understand the context of the nature of the power of the Constitution without putting it in the context of the AoC, especially when discussing the Constitution’s “scope”.

Bullshit, and stop sniveling. I provided examples to support my points and never once lied with respect to what you thought or wrote.

But here’s a better solution, champ - next time, just man up and give me some details if you think I am all wrong. If my examples are faulty, refute them. If you think I have “your take” wrong, then give me your take, straight and simple.

305

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Not necessarily. I did not just indiscriminately and singularly use the term. I used it and then described what I meant by it. And what I didn’t mean by it. He jumped the shark and twisted my intent. He knows he did it deliberately because he’s too smart for it to have been otherwise. Either that or he speed reads and does a poor job of comprehending. [/quote]

And thus it ends, not with a bang, but with an accusal of bad faith and a whimper.

310

It is interesting to think that a true return to the constitution of day one would most likely kick off a it’s own, and very different, revolution.

313

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth, you dumb bastard, what are you doing here? Can’t you see I have my hands full?

“Gimme a T!”

“T!”

“Gimme a B!”

“B!”

“Gimme an O!”

“O!”

“Gimme an L!”

“L!”

“Gimme a T!”

“T!”

“Whadda ya got?”

“T-bolt!”

Oh yeah, I know why you’re here.[/quote]

Sis boom baa Rah Rah Rah! Goooooooo Team!

315

Is the Straw cleared out of the Parlor yet? Can I light up my Churchill, or is the air in here still too filled with dust particles from the throwing around of straw?

316

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
What about that which you cannot see or feel?[/quote]

Does it even matter? If I cannot see it or feel it surely none else can either so it does not affect anyone else’s life. If I should allow those things which cannot be seen or felt to affect my actions then it is brought into the realm of property since it is my life (my ultimate property) that allows those actions.

317

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So your answer to blacks would’ve been “Eh, guess you’ll have to wait until the market takes care of this. Whenever that might be. Good luck.” Hell, the misery under segregation could justify revolution in the minds of many.

I can’t up and give you hard and fast rules for when a state should step in. There are none. It’s something to be debated as specific instances arise. [/quote]

But this is exactly how it happened anyway. And you all are forgetting that the US governmnet actually supported segregation when there were white people perfectly willing to serve black people.

It is not the market that can fix what is in the hearts and minds of backwards thinking people. And you cannot expect the government to do it either since those same fucked up individuals are also in government.

Once again, it is the government messing with the market which causes it to fail. Always!

318

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
And then there is Rothbard.[/quote]

It’s too bad you don’t understand why we must go to Rothbard.

He was the foremost scholar of liberty.

319

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yeah. I’m a fascist for supporting intervention against widespread segregationist society. Have I ever discussed my role model here? Musolini?
[/quote]

But you are a fascist because you would use the state to enforce your vision of how society should look. End of story.

320

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The twin philosophies of social liberalism and limited government (fiscal conservatism) are incompatible. Social liberalism - better stated libertinism - begets the nanny state.
[/quote]

You’re close. Limited government does not work.

Over time, especially in a democracy (don’t respond how the US is not a democracy because it is, essentially) the power seekers will always seek out a way to empower themselves at the expense of everyone else and government provides them the easiest way to do it.