|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 03/10/2006 : 12:38:28 [Permalink]
|
| I'd still like an answer to my questions, THoR, about how the Constitution would have to be rewritten to prevent the government from enacting social policies. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 12:39:33 [Permalink]
|
THoR wrote: quote:
That is not the point. The point is that I do not owe your child an education - YOU DO. To engage the collective to point a gun to my head and force me to pay for your child's education unwillingly is a criminal act.
Children are not property. In the eyes of the government, they are citizens with rights but who are not yet capable of being autonomous, therefore requiring legal guardians. That's why when a mother gives up her child, children's services take responsibility for placing the child in a new home. That's why children are removed from their parents' homes if parents abuse them. And that's why the government helps out economically and educationally when parents cannot afford to take care of the child's basic needs.
How do fit poor disabled, mentally ill, or sick and aged people into your system? Huge numbers of people do not have families or churches that have the funds to help them. The system you advocate would condemn scores of people to dying in the streets for the crime of being unlucky. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 12:39:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
Nice hand-waving dismissal there.
ThanQ, I'm quite proud of it. You will note the author didn't see fit to refute the logic or validity of any true libertarian principles, selecting instead to distort them, reinforce the misunderstandings most already have about the philosophy and launch an empassioned name-calling tantrum.quote:
Of course, the same can be made for Libertarianism: all of it's principles are made without basis upon uninformed assumptions.
OK. Lament how bad it is without addressing the point. Have any examples?
quote:
In the end, this is a worthless argument. Libertarians will NEVER win an election and the philosophy is an intellectually empty premise posited by by people who were born on third and think that they hit a triple.
Libertarians don't crave power. They make LOUSY politicians. They want to DEcentralize power instead of garnering it for themselves. They would rather run FROM office than FOR office.
quote:
I have a question: when do I get to hear the old "rugged individualist" line?
Considering my contribution to the state sow this year, I am now more of a "ragged individualist". Due to the ERISA (government controlled health insurance) act, my health insurance company had to be sued into paying thousands of dollars they tried to cheat me out of - thanks to the government there was no down side to trying to reneige - no punitive damages, no penalties, NADA. I had to buy a lawyer and I was forced to cash in long held securities. Now the IRS wants their share of the cap gains (too bad they don't refund cap losses).quote:
In the end, we are probably not as far apart, philosophically, as it appears. I believe in a balanced approach very similar to the Nordic countries. I have been to countries that had next to no social services (Africa is replete with them) and the quality of life is horrendous. In contrast, countries with a well developed social infrastructure have the highest standard of living.
I think we're about as far apart as we need to be...our fists don't reach each others noses. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 12:44:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'd still like an answer to my questions, THoR, about how the Constitution would have to be rewritten to prevent the government from enacting social policies.
It wouldn't have to be changed, only correctly interpreted based on the intent of our founders.
"It has been urged and echoed, that the power `to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. " James Madison
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" Alexander Hamilton
The powers enumerated in the Constitution have been regularly exceeded by career politicians under the guise of public need. I think our forefathers would find our present form of government REVOLTING. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/10/2006 12:46:55 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 12:44:45 [Permalink]
|
| Hey THoR, are you going to reply to the Jacques Barzun quote, the successful socialism of the Khoi San, and define what you mean by "socialism" and "success"? (page three of this discussion) |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/10/2006 12:46:27 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 12:52:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Hey THoR, are you going to reply to the Jacques Barzun quote, the successful socialism of the Khoi San, and define what you mean by "socialism" and "success"? (page three of this discussion)
Yeah, but unfortunately it's not May 29th (tax day) and I have to go back to work so Uncle Sam can gorge himself on my largesse...be back later. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 13:35:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
It wouldn't have to be changed, only correctly interpreted based on the intent of our founders.
Well, that is going to depend on not taking quotes out of context...quote:
"It has been urged and echoed, that the power `to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. " James Madison
In the preceeding paragraph of The Federalist No. 41, Madison says that "The power of levying and borrowing money..." has been "sufficiently vindicated and explained." In the quote you provide, he is talking about tax objectors "stooping to such a misconstruction" as he went about defending the government's ability to levy taxes.quote:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" Alexander Hamilton
Yes, and it's clear from reading The Federalist No. 84 that Hamilton was an idealist who simply couldn't imagine Congress passing a law abridging, say, freedom of the press simply because the Constitution doesn't specifically grant such powers, and because the government would always be formed by regular citizens. A "career politician" appears to have been unimaginable to him.quote:
The powers enumerated in the Constitution have been regularly exceeded by career politicians under the guise of public need. I think our forefathers would find our present form of government REVOLTING.
Well, for Hamilton it mostly assuredly would be, but only because he appears to have been hopelessly naive about how the country might progress (if his idealistic dreams had been real, "checks and balances" within the government would have been redundant, since all people within the government would have carefully thought out every action they might take and not overstep their bounds at all).
Madison appears to have actually been saying the opposite of what you implied. Others, from what I've read, were much more realistic than Hamilton about the idiots who'd eventually get elected, and realized that powers would be abused, and the citizenry less than quick to do something about it. But, they still did nothing to replace the vague phrase "promote the general welfare" with a more-strictly defined description of the boundaries of the government. And since they didn't, "we the people" have allowed - even demanded - that the government overstep the boundaries you think it should have.
So again, what should be done to eliminate these "interpretation" issues, as it seems clear that you and I don't currently agree on the same interpretation of the two passages you quoted. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 13:47:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
Nice hand-waving dismissal there.
ThanQ, I'm quite proud of it. You will note the author didn't see fit to refute the logic or validity of any true libertarian principles, selecting instead to distort them, reinforce the misunderstandings most already have about the philosophy and launch an empassioned name-calling tantrum.quote:
Of course, the same can be made for Libertarianism: all of it's principles are made without basis upon uninformed assumptions.
OK. Lament how bad it is without addressing the point. Have any examples?
So, in one breath you point out how bad the article is without addressing a SINGLE point then attack me for doing the same
quote:
Libertarians don't crave power. They make LOUSY politicians. They want to DEcentralize power instead of garnering it for themselves. They would rather run FROM office than FOR office.
OOoohhh, but they do it (run for office) because, dammit, "I'm going to fix this problem for the good of others even if they don't know what best for them" Tough Love kind of like, right? Uhhh...yeah, sure.
quote:
I think we're about as far apart as we need to be...our fists don't reach each others noses.
Ewww, gosh, are we in the presence of yet another internet tough guy? A "rugged individualist" no less?
So, who was your favorite, strong, "face chiseled out of stone in grim determination" character from Atlas Shrugged? Was it Dagny Taggart? Howard Roark? Francisco D'Antonio?
|
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 13:50:29 [Permalink]
|
| Brilliant rebuttal Dave. Thanks. I didn't have the time to research those (I suspected) carefully cherry-picked quotes. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 22:57:52 [Permalink]
|
THoR wrote: quote:
... Due to the ERISA (government controlled health insurance) act, my health insurance company had to be sued into paying thousands of dollars they tried to cheat me out of - thanks to the government there was no down side to trying to reneige - no punitive damages, no penalties, NADA. ...
So, let me get this straight: As a Libertarian, you are lamenting that the Federal Government did not impose punitive damages or penalties upon a cheating corporation? Look, I think that's a bum deal, too, but thinking so doesn't contradict my expressed political philosophy. I'm a Liberal, and I do think the government should have a role in keeping corporations honest.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/10/2006 23:03:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 00:15:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
Brilliant rebuttal Dave. Thanks. I didn't have the time to research those (I suspected) carefully cherry-picked quotes.
Well, the Madison quote appears to be the only one (of the two) which was cherry-picked, as it isn't even the full paragraph and so omits extremely important context (like who was doing the urging and echoing).
The Hamilton quote, on the other hand, appears to be completely legit. It just comes from someone who was obviously a romantic idealist at the time. He was under the impression that all members of the government, since they lacked titles (and thus would never consider themselves to be "above" another citizen), wouldn't be able to exercise powers which weren't explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. In other words, he thought that since the Constitution didn't specifically say "Congress has the power to limit free speech," then nobody would ever be able to limit free speech (making that clause of the First Amendment redundant). Hamilton was counting on all of the citizens to be incredibly honest with themselves and with others.
As I said, I think such an attitude was nothing but hopelessly naive. It was doomed to failure, as THoR himself said, which is why I'd like to hear how THoR would actually prevent such abuses of power, which rest upon - allegedly - a mistaken interpretation of the Constitution (and not, presumably, on an intentional abuse of governmental powers for personal and/or political gain). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 01:18:24 [Permalink]
|
Half said:
quote:
As a Libertarian, you are lamenting that the Federal Government did not impose punitive damages or penalties upon a cheating corporation? Look, I think that's a bum deal, too, but thinking so doesn't contradict my expressed political philosophy. I'm a Liberal, and I do think the government should have a role in keeping corporations honest.
Why is there the assumption that libertarians would be in favor of not punishing a cheating corporation?
After perusing this thread I think some of you may be guilty of mischaracterizing libertarians.
Its like somebody saying that this guy is where the baseline republican philosophy is from, and if you are a republican you must be like this guy.
This article, and the quotes from it, posted by Fripp is a fairly rabid distortion of libertarianism. As with any political philosophy there are varying degrees of agreement and acceptance of the base philosophy among those who claim it.
Liberals are pot-smoking, tree-hugging, PETA loving hippies who get together on friday nights for satanic sacrifice and an orgy, then again on saturday nights for abortion parties.
Republicans are theocrats who will stop at nothing to impose their insane "faith based" values on everyone. (not sure if I am kidding on this one or not... hahaha!)
Libertarians are reverse marxists who desire nothing more than total anarchy and to bathe daily in an orgy of self indulgent greed and selfishness.
What a load of shit. 
While there may be some adherents to those philosophies that fit the descriptions, reality says that the majority of them don't.
Most people, I think, find that "pure" political philosophies are unrealistic and basically unworkable. You have to incorporate bits of other philosophies in order to create something that works.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 02:30:11 [Permalink]
|
I myself am an example of the "welfare state." I went on SS Disability in 1,999, and haven't earned an honest dollar since. Oh boy do I ever have it made! quote:
Liberals are pot-smoking, tree-hugging, PETA loving hippies who get together on friday nights for satanic sacrifice and an orgy, then again on saturday nights for abortion parties.
Yessiree, that's all I do -- livin' off the fat of the land whilst all you suckers are out there busting your collective ass to support me. I should thank you all, but I don't think I'll bother.
Try it sometime, Libertarians, Republicans, Democrat idiots.... Walk a fucking mile in my shoes.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 03:50:39 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
Why is there the assumption that libertarians would be in favor of not punishing a cheating corporation?
That's the political philosophy I've heard from a number of Libertarians I've known, who felt that private interests should more or less duke it out through competition in an idealistic free market. Corporations which cheated people would get a bad rap, would not get further business, and would die off, they claimed.
The Libertarians I've talked to were essentially capitalist anarchists. They believed that government was good for nothing, except, some conceded, for very basic police work and national defense. Others thought even these functions were better left to private companies, as well. Maybe your mileage varies, Dude, but that was the way the ones I've known have thought. I found it to be, in my opinion, a political stance that was impractical in the very extreme. I admit, I haven't spoken politics with more than a dozen or so Libertarians, so my small sample may be skewed.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/11/2006 03:52:06 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 04:06:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
THoR wrote: quote:
... Due to the ERISA (government controlled health insurance) act, my health insurance company had to be sued into paying thousands of dollars they tried to cheat me out of - thanks to the government there was no down side to trying to reneige - no punitive damages, no penalties, NADA. ...
So, let me get this straight: As a Libertarian, you are lamenting that the Federal Government did not impose punitive damages or penalties upon a cheating corporation? Look, I think that's a bum deal, too, but thinking so doesn't contradict my expressed political philosophy. I'm a Liberal, and I do think the government should have a role in keeping corporations honest.
No I'm lamenting the fact government denied me the opportunity to go before a jury of my peers, redress a grievance and be made whole. Even after they paid 'most' of what they owed, I am out $5k for a lawyer and the cap gains taxes I had to pay when I had to cash in securities to cover THEIR shortfall on the surgical bills until the appeal was concluded. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
