[Lucky Dog]

Gentlemen:

There appears to have developed some rather gross misunderstandings about my positions on this thread. Consequently, allow me to re-post my original statement in its entirety for your consideration:

From post 14:

The function of any, and all, governments is the maintenance of social order. Ultimately, disagreements and conflicts among the various advocates of differing governmental systems stem from what should be the proper “social order” that is to be maintained. By definition, a “social order” is what makes a “society.” In short, arguments of the proper type of government and proper “social order” are arguments about what should be the proper type of “society.”

Pure libertarians hold that government should be minimized and that government should have only that power necessary to prevent an individual or group of individuals from coercively imposing their will on other individuals or groups. Such a philosophy is, indeed, laudable, but fraught with potential pitfalls. Not the least of the many practical pitfalls is where to draw the limits when valid, individual rights come into conflict.

The classic case of conflict of individual liberties is the individual enjoyment of private property. If a neighbor’s enjoyment of his or her property involves an activity that impairs the enjoyment of my property, whose rights are to be paramount? For example, suppose my neighbor enjoys playing loud music, but I enjoy peace and quiet. Must my neighbor cease enjoying his or her right to do whatever he or she chooses on his or her own property so that I can enjoy whatever I choose on my own property? The foregoing is but one of many potential conflicts in individual liberties and rights that must be balanced.

Even pure libertarians agree that some type of government must be called upon to coercively balance individual rights based upon certain principles. The quarrel then becomes on what principles should this coercive power be founded and exactly how should that coercive force be wielded. With this concession, the pure libertarian is in the same “philosophical boat” with all other advocates of differing forms of government.

A pure libertarian could never philosophically support socialism, Marxism, monarchism, feudalism, fascism, or even unlimited democracy. Each of these systems of government (and, in some cases, economy) can allow, and have allowed in the past, the state to trample the liberty of individual. Therefore, the pure libertarian, it appears, can only support a constitutionally limited, democratically-elected, republican form of government with certain individual rights immutably and irrevocably enshrined in that constitution. Further, a pure libertarian could never support any economic system except capitalism since all others arbitrarily limit the individual’s freedom to engage any commercial enterprise of choice. Unfortunately, another of those pesky, practical, pitfalls appears, again.

Capitalism, unbridled, leads to monopolies which, in turn, strangle capitalism. In other words, this economic system, unregulated, contains the seeds of its own destruction. Consequently, even pure libertarians must concede that some form of coercive regulation has to be emplaced to prevent monopolies from developing and stifling the economic liberties of the individual. However, what type of regulation and how much is appropriate? Once again, with this concession, the pure libertarian is lumped together in the same competition with all other advocates of differing forms of government.

Inevitably, the argument returns to what should be the proper type of “society.” “Societies,” it seems, have some principles of their own that must be observed. For example, a society that discourages, or at least, fails to encourage its citizens to procreate is doomed to collapse from an eventual lack of population. Therefore, a government supporting a society must encourage, or, minimally, not discourage, the production of new potential citizens.

Yet, again, another conundrum arises for a pure libertarian. Gay marriage would seem to be an individual liberty choice on the face of the issue. However, the practice weakens the heterosexual family unit and thus, potentially the “society” in which the libertarian would exist. Does the pure libertarian take the position of saying the government should not be involved in the issue and allow such advocacy to potentially weaken the “society” to the point of collapse, and with it, his or her liberties? Alternately, does the libertarian take the position that limits must be emplaced on individual liberty for the continued existence of a society of limited liberties?

Another problem of “societies” is that a certain percentage of the population must, of necessity, be “productive” or the entire population starves and the “society,” again, collapses. Whether and individual chooses to abuse his or her body with hallucinogenic and narcotic drugs appears, on the surface, to be purely and individual liberty choice. However, if a “society” does not encourage its members to be “productive” by penalizing, or, at least, discouraging, non-productive behavior, it risks collapse from starvation. Consequently, a libertarian is, again, faced with the choice or risking loss of his own liberties due to the collapse of a “society” which would support a government protecting them. Alternately, the libertarian must support limiting the liberties of fellow citizens to engage in destructive behavior.

The modern Libertarian (note the capital letter) Party seems to have ill-defined concepts of how to balance individual liberty with the requirements of a stable “society” that remains capable of supporting and protecting those very liberties IMHO.

Our boy [presumably referring to Lucky Dog] willfully ignores the "presumption of liberty" inherent in our Constitution.

You are decidedly incorrect in your assessment.

The Constitution was written and ratified to secure liberty through limited government. Central to its design were two principles: federalism and economic liberty…

I have no basic philosophical quarrel with these statements. However, I think we part company on matters of degree. Let me remind you that in the original document universal “liberty” was not acknowledged, i.e., there was no universal suffrage and slavery was an officially recognized institution. “Liberty” was exclusively for those who were of the correct race, sex and economic status.

Our various level of governments have no delegated powers to promote so called "traditional values".

US Constitution, Article I Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to…

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof

Exactly what part of making laws do you think excludes “traditional values?”

There you go again, claiming there can be "legal" prohibitions on life, liberty or property, without violating due process of law.

First, I never claimed that there can be “legal” prohibitions on life. However, one could view a death sentence for lawful conviction of a capital crime as such. As an item of interest there are hundreds of constitutionally valid “legal prohibitions” in our legal system. As a minor example, your liberty travel on a public highway in excess of the posted speed limit is, in fact, “legally prohibited.”

It appears that you are confused about the definition of “due process of law.” The term simply means that a citizen can not be deprived by the legal system of life, liberty or property without a legally recognized and proper proceeding such as a trial before a competent tribunal with valid jurisdiction.

-- Both the writing & enforcement of fiat prohibitions violate due process.

Exactly where did you come up with the idea that I proposed the writing & enforcement of fiat prohibitions? I have never even mentioned such. Rather, I have spoken of Congress and state legislatures passing laws under the authority granted them by the US Constitution and their various state constitutions. However, unless you are woefully ignorant, or willfully perfidious, such can, in no way, be termed the writing & enforcement of fiat prohibitions. As I have previously noted, due process of law is about the legal sanctions for violations of “legal prohibitions.”

I trust we have "cleared the air" of misunderstandings.

[Marxbites]

Capitalism, unbridled, leads to monopolies which, in turn, strangle capitalism. In other words, this economic system, unregulated, contains the seeds of its own destruction. Consequently, even pure libertarians must concede that some form of coercive regulation has to be emplaced to prevent monopolies from developing and stifling the economic liberties of the individual.

Prove this assertion please!! IMHO, capitalism is merely the result of liberty - the free choosing of who, what or where to do commerce with, or not, as one sees is in his own best interest.

America had NO monopolies until Govt created them at industry's own behest to quash small competitors with the barriers to entry of regulation. This is NOT debatable, it is fact.

The reason they did this is that commodities were falling in price from competition to the taxpayer's good benefit for nearly the whole last quarter of the 1800's.

Why settle for non-guaranteed profits when they could prevail on Govt to give them the same deal as they saw their euro-counterparts & partners getting from the euro-dictators in the making?

Just like they copied state education, the better to propagandize us with.

And SS, the better to fund reelection slush funds with.

Graduated taxation, the better to instill class warfare and more Govt.

On and on it goes. We've adopted every pathetic central planners dream from the euro-statists that we eventually had to go to wars to relieve them from!