Your Score Your scored 1 on the Moral Order axis and -7 on the Moral Rules axis. Matches The following items best match your score:
Statistics Of the 185187 people who took the test:
Others
|
 |
Posted on 05/03/2006 2:49:08 PM PDT by ghostmonkey
Often I see Libertarians refer to themselves as "Conservatives" or "Right". Yet, many times, on many web-boards, I see the libertarians taking the same positions as Demonrats, and they seem to support Demonrats over Republicans.
I did a bit of research, and I found why this might be the case. Libertarianism is actually in the same political system as Liberalism.
http://www.moral-politics.com/xPolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Ideologies&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalIdeologies.All
What our nation of states was originally based upon
Libertarian Capitalists believe individuals should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the equal rights of others.
Yes, it's called freedom, a premise which Republicans and liberals have made quite clear on more than one occasion they do not believe
They further believe that the only legitimate use of force, whether public or private, is to protect those rights.
And big government advocates believe the government should be used to forward their agenda. In direct opposition to the first statement.
For libertarians, there are no positive rights (such as to food or shelter or health care), only negative rights (such as to not be assaulted, abused, robbed or censored).
You believe you have a right to food, shelter, or healthcare? Who's going to provide it? The government? Not a very conservative argument.
In reality, the Constitution reserves powers to the state to protect all rights not enumerated.
Where does it say that?
If not, you aren't being very consistant.
Of course I do. Do you think states have the power to restrict felons from owning firearms?
No. A14 extends restrictions of Powers to the state.
A9 says people still retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution. A10 says, powers not prohibited by the Constitution to the states are retained by the states. These powers protect unenumerated rights.
Amendment X:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where does it say that?
You think that the Constitution doesn't reserve powers to the state?
You don't think that people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution?
Read A9 and A10.
Only while incarcerated or as a condition for release as part of punishment from a trial. However, the CGA of 1968 is a FEDERAL law that the Constitution expressly says the Feds had no power to pass. Same for the NFA of '34 and the FOPA of '86. The 1989 Import Ban is debatable.
No mere State level restriction on RKBA is accepatable as a priori restraint on law aibiding citizens.
Bunch of "honor" type stuff all mixed in there. Kinda goes with the territory. You start thinking ethically, next thing you know, you are acting ethically. Honor comes from the realization that your word really does mean something.
You see that is my point,you must still have a legal authority,but than rely on an "honor" system of sorts for enforcement.
The problem still lies in the old saying "there is no honor among thieves".What happens if someone refuses to agree to your premise?
It is not a perfect system that we have but despite the flaws and shortcomings show me one anywhere in the world that works better.
Thanks for engaging in a civilized debate of a difference of opinion.
That is sorely lacking often,even here at FR.
Agree, as part of a punishment, yes.
Then, instead of settling things peacefully, you shoot them. Same thing we do today, but we hire cops to do it for us.
Some are only here to bash a philosophy they don't like. Others, are actually trying to talk about things. I'd prefer to come to an agreement or compromise. I realize my views are extreme, but they ere on the side of real freedom.
That can't be too much of a bad thing if people like the Founders were willing to kill for it.
Gotta run for the night.
FReegards...
No comment on my rebuttal of your view of Lawrence v Texas?
-- The Constitution was used by the USSC to 'strike down' a State infringement of a fundamental property right, -- the right to close your bedroom door and act as you please with another consenting adult.
Do you extend this "right" to incestuous acts as well, tpaine?
There is no confusion at all. The only legitimate justificaiton for govm't, or govm't action is to protect rights. That is libertarian theory. The Constitution is irrelevant to libertarian theory.
" Here's a fairly current libertarian view on our Constitution:"
That may be a libertarian commenting on original intent. That is not an examinaiton of the Constitution with regard to libertarian theory.
Where does it say that?
Read A9 and A10.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You think that the Constitution doesn't reserve powers to the state?
The 10th clearly says those not prohibited are so reserved. -- However, it says nothing to the effect that it "reserves powers to the state to protect all rights not enumerated"; -- nor does the 9th.
Admit it, you 'boldly' made that line up.
You don't think that people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution?
Indeed they do, just as the 9th says. --- The 9th does not say it "reserves powers to the state to protect all rights not enumerated"
And in reality, -- States are violating unenumerated powers just as fast as the feds, if not more. -- Can you agree?
Your Score Your scored 1 on the Moral Order axis and -7 on the Moral Rules axis. Matches The following items best match your score:
Statistics Of the 185187 people who took the test:
Others
|
|
-- The Constitution was used by the USSC to 'strike down' a State infringement of a fundamental property right, -- the right to close your bedroom door and act as you please with another consenting adult.
Do you extend this "right" to incestuous acts as well, tpaine?
Unable to debate the issue as framed, Joe? -- Re-read 'consenting adult'. -- A couple of adult cousins fooling around in their bedroom should be safe from the State of Texas knocking the door down, -- true?
The 10th clearly says those not prohibited are so reserved. -- However, it says nothing to the effect that it "reserves powers to the state to protect all rights not enumerated"; -- nor does the 9th. Admit it, you 'boldly' made that line up.
What? Are you really going to call me on the carpet because I left out the words "may potentially"?
I'll be clearer: The Constitution reserves powers to the states so that the states may potentially protect all rights not enumerated.
And in reality, -- States are violating unenumerated powers just as fast as the feds, if not more. -- Can you agree?
I never intended to say otherwise.
Do you believe in a right to consensual incest or not tpaine?
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.