Davocrat

I reckon that there are more libertarians on Political Hotwire than any other single group.

I'll confess there is something intriguing about the notion of a simple solution of assuring individuals maximum liberty could prevent many of the problems we face day-to-day by limiting the role of government.

On the other hand, I find something quaint but unrealistic about dogmatic devotion to the perceived intent of the men who wrote the constitution.

What do you think?

Suck me, Ponzi.

Advertising

nickcuse

the idea that the country could or SHOULD exist today as it did right after its birth is just plain impossible. for one thing, its never happened ever in the history of the world. all countries, big and small have undergone massive transformations in both their populace and the bodies that govern them. my question is where does this idea come from? where is this mystical example of a completly unchanged, unevolved country that libertarians can point to as their prototype for america?

Think for myself

Quaint.

Libertarianism sounds great in theory, and they do make some good points.

However, how there overall plan is to be implemented lacks a whole fucking lot of strategy and details.

Let's face it. It's not 1780 anymore. it doesn't take months to cross to a different country, or years for news to travel. While the Constitution is brilliant, it was also never meant to remain static. We do have to look at the modern interpretation of it, and it seems to me that Libertarians are simply unwilling or are too parsimonious to do that.

Defensor, on sources of information.

It doesn't matter who's reporting on the facts

Nerv14

My biggest support of Libertarianism is that if anyone actualy looks through the Constitution it is very clear that the federal government can only have certain powers. The Constitution actualy labels the powers of the federal government and says that all other powers are reserved to the states.

Libertarians are the only ones that follow the Constitution on all of its level, and I think it would be better if the Constitution was just changed so liberals and conservatives didn't break it. However, before the Constitution is changed for the better, libertarians are the only ones that follow it.

I have nothing wrong with the federal government taking charge when it comes to regulatory agencies, education or even some forms of welfare, but I become very sceptical of it because I know that all of the plans that I want is breaking the Constitution.

I have no problem with the actualy policies of increased federal power, but I don't like what is happening to a country that just accepts violations of its Constitution because of the standard it brings up that violating the Constittion is acceptable.

If it is acceptable for the Constitution to be broken by exending the designated powers of Congress, then wouldn't it also be more acceptable for the Constitution to be violated for issues of... freedom of speach or housing of troops in people houses?

The libertarianism idea of small governments everywhere at all levels is very unrealistic, and quaint, but Libertarianism also believes that the Constitution should always be followed, which insures that the parts of the Bill of Rights that almost everyone supports will be followed.

True, partisan libertarianism overall isn't very practical, but it closes the door for the federal government gaining illegal power, which is still important.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"

-Winston Churchill

(What alternative do we have though?)

Defensor's analysis of Barack Obama, Democratic nominee for president of the United States:

Sparta

Good point nick, and how many of those republics or democracies are around today?

NEW YORK - This isn't even that much fun anymore. Burying the 2008 Yankees has become too darn easy - like practicing layups on an 8-foot rim or beating a 4-year-old at checkers.

Nerv14

The country can change, but the Constitution is still clear on what type of country we need to be. We can change and evolve, but the Constitution needs to be altered first, and no one is doing that.

All it takes is a 2/3 majority to change the Constitution and since 99% of the politicians are from the major parties they should have no problem finding people to alter the Constitution.

Why don't they just say that welfare, public schooling, the fed and all of the other programs are allowed by the federal government in one amendment?

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"

-Winston Churchill

(What alternative do we have though?)

Defensor's analysis of Barack Obama, Democratic nominee for president of the United States:

Sparta

Because there is no federal school, welfare doesn't work, and the fed is not necessary.

NEW YORK - This isn't even that much fun anymore. Burying the 2008 Yankees has become too darn easy - like practicing layups on an 8-foot rim or beating a 4-year-old at checkers.

Nerv14

My point is that those programs still exist but they are unconstitutional. The government wants them so they should at least make them legal. If they are working on not is another issue.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"

-Winston Churchill

(What alternative do we have though?)

Defensor's analysis of Barack Obama, Democratic nominee for president of the United States:

nickcuse

well i just mean in an even broader sense. how many countries underwent radical changes in the type of government they had, whether it be from a kingship to a republic or from a republic to a dictatorship, whatever the case may be.

Sparta

No they aren't, the Constitution exists to limit federal power, and garuntee individual liberty, there is no need to list what the government can do.

NEW YORK - This isn't even that much fun anymore. Burying the 2008 Yankees has become too darn easy - like practicing layups on an 8-foot rim or beating a 4-year-old at checkers.