Your 'authority', Chambers, was not a constitutional conservative. At best he can be seen as a communitarian.
If I recall correctly, the last few pages of Rand's turgid opus, 'Atlas Shrugged' deal with a re-writing of the Constitution along lines more amenable to her philosophy. So if you're one of those objectivist libertarian types for whom 'Atlas Shrugged' is holy writ, --
Rest easy my boy, -- I'm not. -- I don't support re-writing our Constitution. [except for repeal of the income tax]
Insofar as my comment on dismal libertarian electoral performance is concerned, I was pointing out--albeit in a roundabout way--that in our type of government, the value of political philosophies is measured by the vote; the vote is the coin of the realm.
Yep, thats how 'majority rule' people think. Thanks for sharing.
Er, yes, I'm one of those majority rule people. Blame it on that pesky Constitution you invoke with such faux piety.
Communitarian 'majority rule' dogma is not based on our Constitution. You people ignore our rights to life, liberty, & property in your 'rules'.
Ergo, libertarianism--as a party, as a platform, as an ideology--is pathetically penniless. I'd use the term 'bankrupt', but that would imply that at some point in the past, the libertarians actually had something worthwhile to say.
They still do. They support our constitution & individual liberties. -- However, I do not support the 'party'. -- I support our Constitution.
I, - like most libertarians, welcome debate. Its infantile bashing, like yours, that initiates flame wars.