Posted on 02/05/2005 1:10:36 PM PST by libertyman
I never said that "OUR" system (meaning the FF orig charter) ,was outdated. I believe it's concept is eternal. What I said was that Libertarian principles that would function within that system have become obsolete. ie: isolationism
I may have made an incorrect assumption when I said "your beliefs" What I should have said was many of the core beliefs of Libertarianism
What on earth are you talking about? The growing imbalance in American life is a direct result of trying to fuse "Democracy" onto our system of limited Government.
Open your eyes. Our system is premised upon individual responsibility. While that is not inconsistent with citizens voting--certainly not--it is rapidly thrown out of kilter, when we have politicians who are willing to sell their very souls to get elected, and will promise special favors to voting blocks, that completely alter the established relationships of the individuals to the Government.
This trend is responsible for the Welfare State, which has undermined the character of millions of Americans at the relative bottom of society. It is also responsible for the failure to enforce meaningful immigration laws--the politicians are afraid of offending various ethnic groups on the one hand, and businesses seeking cheap labor on the other.
The limited Government, invisioned by the Fathers, was a system for the ages. What we have now is a rehash of the folly that has destroyed civilization after civilization, throughout history. Whether the mob could vote in some of those civilizations was not the issue, but the tampering with the workings of a healthy society to keep the mob happy was. "Democracy" has become the vehicle for our equivalent of the "Bread and Circuses" of Rome.
A group has a problem, and instead of reaching down and solving it, they look to Government. That was never the intention. And, however, popular (Democratic) it will never be sound policy, for all of the reasons that Socialism is not sound economics.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Iraqis saw the names of parties but not always the names of the candidates on the party lists.
Candidates hid their names in fear of the bombers.
I'm sick of hearing the "isolationist" canard over & over again. Does minding our own business in the affairs of other nations mean that we are becoming a recluse? Does staying out of foreign wars mean that we won't take an active role in helping to bring about peace?
The US of A is a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC you are not trying to argue that point, are you?
BTTT
Democracy in it's extreme would be representative communism, Repubilcanism in it's extreme would be anarchy
Only your grammar. The United States always are, in the Constitution and related documents, as well as according to common sense. We are a Federation of States, as is the European Union, but we respect the individuality of our States and only guarantee them a Republican form of Government. They each choose to allow a wide democratic participation. But that is left to the States by the Constitution--even the franchise extending Amendments just limit the types of qualifications that may be applied.
On the other hand, I strongly advocate putting some strictures on the suffrage. I do not believe people should be allowed to vote for any level of Government from which they receive unearned handouts. The conflicts of interest there are too obvious. I also would address the questions of voting by the illiterate or senile, etc..
William Flax
I believe a core belief in your philosophy is that a government should use no coersive force against evil if the non-aggression axiom has not been violated. In other words unless someone attacks us on our shores we should not go to war.....ever. If that isn't isolationist, and myopic btw, I dont know what is
If our representation in Congress had been limited to the election of the Senate representatives (2 per state) I would agree with you, but the fact that we have a House of Reps changes the equation. The "House" is democracy personified
The World changes. Those who refuse to change generally become the designated javelin catcher.
BTW everyone after a bit of a shaky start we have managed to have an excellent debate here without deteriorating into a pi$$ing match. That I do appreciate.
Democracy may not be liberty but its a hell of a lot better than tyranny!
Yes, the world does change...& that's why the Founding Fathers added clauses into the Constitution that permit its amendment when necessary. Just like the 10 Commandments, its meaning doesn't change over periods of time--regardless of what popular opinion @ the time may want.
But like I said previously, until the Constitution is amended, it means exactly the same thing today that it did when it was originally written. Harry Browne (the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate back in 1996 & 2000) was right then he said "a living Constitution is a DEAD Constitution'. Thomas Jefferson said the same thing several times.
The shiites that had left Iraq for Iran have tasted both the tyranny of a dictator and the tyranny of the mullahs. While there might be some strong religious bonds with shiites in Iran, they seem to be sincere in wanting some religious freedom guarantees in their constitution.
While the author of the article is full of doom and gloom, something special happened during this election...in my view the glass is half full.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.