Taunting the Libertarian Bull

CITIZEN OUTREACH ^ | 12/16/2004 | Chuck Muth

[muir_redwoods]

"You are loonies. big time."

How is it a "loony" party attracts so many otherwise mainsteam republican voters so as to throw an election? It sounds to me that the Republican Party (to which I belong) in Washington State needs to pay more attention to a dissaffected segment of their base that is seeking support in the Libertarian party.

I'm sorry if some Washingtonians aren't being very good and docile voters these days.

[Badray]

Your assertions prove nothing.

Show me the Constitutional authority for the FEDERAL government to be involved in education. You'll have to find a liberal version because 'education' is NOT in the Constitution. If it isn't, then why are the Feds in education?

[radicalamericannationalist]

The Northwest Ordinances regulated Federal Territories over which Congress has the power to legislate. That is the Constitutional basis for the ordinances.

[vox_freedom]

Amen. And, thanks for your other postings on this thread. You've helped my understanding of the issues.

[Badray]

Where do I say that a law must be 100% effective? Laws do not prevent anything. They only provide for a punishment for a violation of the law, so I don't expect them to work as you suggest that I do. And the evidence is that they don't work all that well at all in governing behavior.

I don't need man's law to tell me that I should not murder. God's law tells me that. Even if there were no law on the books regarding murder, I would not murder someone and neither would most people. It's not the punishment that stops people from committing crimes, it's the fact that the behavior is wrong.

[Badray]

Based on your own description of the Northwest Ordinances, what do they have to do with education.

Answer my questions:

Do you believe that the feds should have a role in education? Do you believe that federal involvement has helped improve education?

[Boxsford]

Wow! A libertarian thread and look whose here!

You're insane!

[Boxsford]

I haven't gone throught the thread yet---or read the article yet...but it seems to me you did not respond to post #171. You answered with a question. I'd like to hear a response to #171.

I'm going to get a beer while I wait.....

[jonestown]

You wrote:

"Indeed, the First Congress went so far as to re-authorize the Northwest Ordinances. These ordinances called for the establishment of government funded churches that would specifically be called for to teach religion.

This is quite a step away from the LP call for "the complete separation of education and State."

---

Just off the top of your head, could you locate where "these ordinances called for the establishment of government funded churches" ?


The Northwest Ordinance 1787
Address:http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/ohc/history/h_indian/treaties/nword.shtml Changed:6:41 PM on Tuesday, December 28, 2004

[Boxsford]

good question. I hope you get an answer.

[jonestown]

Boxsford wrote:
I'd like to hear a response to #171.

---

See my posts 180 & 189.

[jonestown]

Wanna bet I don't get a rational one?

[Boxsford]

"Some do, some don't. Big deal."

ah, and here lies the problem. The 'some do' and the 'some don't' camp......in fact it is a big deal but that's for another discussion.

I liked your response to the post. Thanks for directing me to it. My good friend Ray must be out and about.

[jonestown]

I wrote;
What makes you think libertarian philosophy would prevent our government from Constitutionally using protective tariffs if needed?

___________________________


"The libertarians do not make a Constitutional argument against tariffs. They do, however, "support abolition of all trade barriers and all government-sponsored export-
promotion programs."

Ray

_______________________________


Some do, some don't. Big deal.

Jones

---

Boxsford wrote:

ah, and here lies the problem. The 'some do' and the 'some don't' camp......in fact it is a big deal but that's for another discussion.

---

"It is"? Why? -- Aren't you here to taunt libertarians?
Why not fess up & admit that's part of the discussion? -- And, - part of "the problem"..

[Boxsford]

No, to tell you the truth I came here to taunt Badray. Actually I used to have libertarian leanings......likely still do, but don't like libertarians as a new rule.
The 'some do'camp vs the 'some don't' camp finds its way in the larger more important issues (large to me anyway) and can be confusing on what the party will really stand.
It's late and I really came here for entertainment purposes only. Maybe we can talk tomorrow.

[radicalamericannationalist]

The Northwest Ordinances were Congress' regulation of the Northwestern Territory inherited by the federal government after the revolutionary war. Part of those regulations included requiring the creation of schools.

I did not make the argument that the federal government was effective in improving education. My argument was that the Founders did not see the need for separating state and education, as the LP platform demands.

[radicalamericannationalist]

This language certainly seems to indicate that Congress intended to establish such institutions.

"Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

[jonestown]

Boxsford wrote:

No, to tell you the truth I came here to taunt Badray. Actually I used to have libertarian leanings......likely still do, but don't like libertarians as a new rule.

As a rule, those who claim to have "libertarian leanings" [but like to taunt them], are simply rationalizing away their basic fear of individual liberty. Sad fact, no?

The 'some do'camp vs the 'some don't' camp finds its way in the larger more important issues (large to me anyway) and can be confusing on what the party will really stand.

The "party"? By & large [as a rule] libertarians could care less what a political Party says. -- In fact, that individual independence IS the "important issue" .
-- Catch 22, - it's an issue that bots can't understand.

It's late and I really came here for entertainment purposes only. Maybe we can talk tomorrow.

I hope so, as you have no idea how entertaining you fellas are.

[jonestown]

radicalamericannationalist wrote:

"Indeed, the First Congress went so far as to re-authorize the Northwest Ordinances. These ordinances called for the establishment of government funded churches that would specifically be called for to teach religion.

---

Just off the top of your head, could you locate where "these ordinances called for the establishment of government funded churches" ?

The Northwest Ordinance 1787
Address:http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/ohc/history/h_indian/treaties/nword.shtml Changed:6:41 PM on Tuesday, December 28, 2004
189 jones

---

good question. I hope you get an answer.
190 Boxsford

---

This language certainly seems to indicate that Congress intended to establish such institutions.
"Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

197 radical

---

Boxsford, - as I predicted, - no rational answer, just an 'indication'.
Nothing in the Ordinance called for the establishment of government funded churches. - Another myth shot down.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Given that the ordinance was one for the Federal government's running of the territories, common sense says it would be funding those schools. I apologize for thinking that you would have common sense. Forgot I was dealing with libertarians here.