We've been arguing about a political test based on Dungeons and Dragons. Note the implication: libertarians are "chaotic evil" and Reaganites are "lawful evil".
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
There is no confusion at all. The only legitimate justificaiton for govm't, or govm't action is to protect rights.
That is [ONE aspect of many] libertarian theor[ies] .
I corrected your last line.
Sorry, but imho you have not been appointed as FR's arbiter of libertarian theory. Try to prove me wrong.
The Constitution is irrelevant to libertarian theory.
Not to American libertarians. I've known very few that reject our Constitution as irrelevent. -- Most at FR view it as a very libertarian document, and support it wholeheartedly.
Here's a fairly current libertarian view on our Constitution: - Citing Barnetts "Presumption of Liberty".
That may be a libertarian commenting on original intent. That is not an examinaiton of the Constitution with regard to libertarian theory.
You're simply denying the whole thrust of Barnetts book.
-- Feel free to dream on that you have some sort of a 'special insight' into libertarianism, -- but seems to me you're just trolling the issue.
Seems like liberals don't want any military :) But I was talking about the welfare state. The government takes evrything from the rich and gives the poor everything they need.
-- 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?
Do you believe in a right to consensual incest or not tpaine?
I don't 'believe' that the State of Texas has the power to write or enforce 'laws' prohibiting adults from consensual incest, joe.
In fact, I'm positive that the 14th Amendment says that about all laws depriving us of life, liberty, or property. Due process must be used in writing reasonable regulations on such 'sinful' matters.
The federal government would IMHO have the authority to extend such punishments to people if they travel to other states (Fair Faith and Credit clause) but only in cases where the sentencing state imposed them. For the federal government to apply its own rules to when such a ban applies has no constitutional basis.
As for the 1989 import ban, it may be constitutional to restrict the actual importation of certain items, but I see no legitimate basis for restricting what people can do with the items once they've been legally imported.
IMHO, what should have happened (based on my understanding of the case) would have been for the USSC to dismiss without prejudice, with instructions for the defendants to present arguments (if they had any) that the action of the men was not in any way worse than the action of others whom law enforcement was aware of but ignored. My expectation would be that the defendants would have been able to provide at least some evidence to that effect, and that the state would have been able to provide at least some evidence to the contrary. If that indeed occurred, the case should then have been remanded to trial court to determine whose evidence was more credible.
I have read allegations that the two men in this case were trying to push a test case up to the Supreme Court, and placed the 'burglary' call themselves. If the state had been able to prove that, the men should have been convicted and I don't think there would have been much outcry. If the men had been able to prove that they were minding their own business and trying to be discrete, that the police were well aware of many sodomy cases they did not bother to pursue, and that they had no reason to expect to be intruded upon, then they should have been acquitted.
I don't know which way the facts of the case would have gone, but I think having the matters decided in trial court would have been much better than having the USSC make a blanket ruling.
Wow... (sarc) sounds horrible...(/sarc)
No protectionj for the unborn, rampant drug use, weak-kneed foreign policy. Sounds a little disconcerting to me.
Still, at least they're committed to limited government, which is more than I can say for Republicans or Democrats.
Thanks, will get to it tomorrow. Looks good.
I forgot to include open borders, which is one of their worst policies right now.
I consider myself a Libertarian. I am no lefty I can assure you. I may have positions on some issues that you may consider to be Liberal, but they are actually rooted in the spirit of an individual's rights as long as no one else's life and liberty are being affected by their actions.
The issue, IMHO, is not some inherent "right to have sex", but rather one of the extent to which the state should be allowed to intrude upon people's private affairs for the purpose of enforcing its laws, especially in cases where there is no complainant.
If a state legislature decides to pass a law against wearing green tennis shoes on a public right of way, I would expect it would have the authority to do so. I would not, however, extend to it the authority to ban the wearing of green tennis shoes within private dwellings in places not visible from the outside. Not because of any inherent "right to wear green tennis shoes", but rather because such a law would be inherently unenforceable without giving the state arbitrary powers to invade people's property to check on their footwear.
One principle which isn't in the U.S. Constitution, and probably isn't any state constitutions, but should be in all, is this: a person should not be punished for performing an act which a reasonable and knowledgeable person would have believed to be, de jure or de facto, legal. I'm not sure, but I would expect common law recognized the principle to some extent; certainly the jury system used to. Acknowledging this principle would help the USSC avoid and unwind some horrible precedents, by finding that the defendants in a criminal case violated a law that was constitutional but which they had reason to believe was not. Such a finding would block prosecution in all cases prior to its issuance, but would allow prosecution for acts committed afterward.
ping
No, you added junk.
" That is [ONE aspect of many] libertarian theor[ies]"
There aren't many libertarian theories, there is only one. The statement was, "There is no confusion at all. The only legitimate justificaiton for govm't, or govm't action is to protect rights." Provide what you think is another valid purpose of govm't in libertarian theory.
Re: The Constitution is irrelevant to libertarian theory.
"Not to American libertarians.
There are no specific govm't documents in the theory. The theory is general and exists all by itself. The Constitution does not follow libertarian theory, it allows for things the theory holds repugnant. One can examine the Constitution for libertarian provisions and apply libertarian theory in the execution of it's powers. Socialists and authoritarians in general can also apply their arbitrary ideas utilizing the document.
" You're simply denying the whole thrust of Barnetts book."
Your link led to an article regarding original intent.
We've been arguing about a political test based on Dungeons and Dragons. Note the implication: libertarians are "chaotic evil" and Reaganites are "lawful evil".
I am a libertarian, and do not believe in open borders- nor do I believe in granting amnesty.
So goes your unsupported claim.
The statement was, "There is no confusion at all. The only legitimate justificaiton for govm't, or govm't action is to protect rights."
And I replied that is one aspect of many libertarian theories.
Provide what you think is another valid purpose of govm't in libertarian theory.
Read the preamble to our US Constitution for valid purposes, none of which clash with any libertarian theories.
The Constitution is irrelevant to libertarian theory.
Not to American libertarians. I've known very few that reject our Constitution as irrelevant. -- Most at FR view it as a very libertarian document, and support it wholeheartedly.
There are no specific govm't documents in the theory. The theory is general and exists all by itself.
You keep insisting that "the theory" exists. --- Prove it. - Can you post a link?
The Constitution does not follow libertarian theory, it allows for things the theory holds repugnant.
Their you go again.. 'The theory' is in your imagination. Millions of libertarians have a lot of different theories on government.
One can examine the Constitution for libertarian provisions and apply libertarian theory in the execution of it's powers. Socialists and authoritarians in general can also apply their arbitrary ideas utilizing the document.
Of course 'one' can.. Your point?
Your link led to an article regarding original intent.
http://freedomkeys.com/barnett.htm ^
WHY CARE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS?
An Excerpt from the New Book
RESTORING THE LOST CONSTITUTION: The Presumption of Liberty
by Randy Barnett
You're simply denying the whole thrust of Barnetts book. -- Feel free to dream on that you have some sort of a 'special insight' into libertarianism, -- but seems to me you're just trolling the issue.
Sorry, -- but according to "the theory" what you may believe is irrelevant. The theory rules all of us, no matter how we protest.
Ah, the "inner circle" of Randianism... Soviet-style ideological purity without the cool uniforms.
Not necessarily. If it is sentient, it is human and killing it is murder. Also, no Roe V Wade and no government funding for abortion mills. An improvement over today don't you think?
rampant drug use,
Comes with complete self ownership. There won't be anyone there to catch you if you screw yourself up. In fact, if you cut loose in a drug crazed mania in the public square you just may end up with high speed lead poisoning. Again, it is your life, YOU alone are responsible for it. Do not screw it up because we won't stop you from killing yourself.
weak-kneed foreign policy.
Depends on who you talk to. If it was up to me, we'd be licensing Privateer companies to hunt down terror groups and strip countries that harbor them bare. Again, it all comes down to initiation of force. You HIT us, we'll whipe you off the face of the Earth. Leave us alone, we'll leave you alone.
Sounds a little disconcerting to me.
That is does, at first. Many a night I've sat there thinking over some point trying to wrap my brain around it. The epiphanies are actually pretty simple. You just need to stop thinking that you have a Right to control somoene elses life. That is the first step. The next is realizing that you, and you alone, are responsible for YOUR life. Everything else is pretty easy from there.
Agreed. I may not like Bush the Elder's boneheaded gun hating and his "sporting purpose" clause, but the Constitution DOES give that power to the Feds.
Sucks TWICE because I'd REALLY love to get my hands on one of those Hungarian Gepards. Half the price of most .50BMG's, a bit more powerful and supposedly a bit more accurate as well. I'd love to get into 1000+yrds shooting, but can't afford a decent rig at todays prices.
Actually, if you get rid of welfare, entitlement programs, freebies, and handouts, the only people you'd have coming here would be those wanting to actually BE Americans.
Further, if everyone and their cousin is armed to the teeth dang near every hour of the day, it makes it kinda hard to hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings. Also makes it kinda hard to suicide bomb people. Start chanting "Allah Akbar" at the local coffee shop, you'd better be reaching for your wallet and not your suicide belt or Allah may be picking your brains off the floor from one of the patrons ventilating your brain housing group for you. Exactly that last scenario has played out in both Iraq and in Israel.
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.