Posted on 03/07/2005 1:08:36 PM PST by quidnunc
Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.
There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties — I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism — enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before.
This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.
-snip-
secretagent wrote:
We have the freedom to live here and not support the "principles of the Constitution", or to have even heard of them.
Was slavery constitutional at one time?
Yes, it was, and we had to correct that flaw in our principles at considerable expense..
-- Which proved that exceptions to the rule of law, and to Constitutional principles, do not work.
Two verbs in same sentence (not a criticism - I often do it). But your meaning is unclear as to what you meant by "do not work." Please explain.
Slavery was a flaw, an exception, in our Constitutions original principles.. It didn't work.. As made evident by the civil war.
Yes, it was, and we had to correct that flaw in our principles at considerable expense..
Did Americans who aided slaves in escaping to Canada violate the Constitution?
Depends on how the fugitive slave law was written, doesn't it? But sure, if that law was written properly, they probably were guilty of violating the slave owners property rights.
If I'd have been on a jury trying such a case, I'd have voted for a stiff fine.. Say a dollar a head.
If yes, doesn't that point to principles superior to the "principles of the Constitution?
Initially I see an immediate problem addressing this idea of yours. First off, there are no specifically set out "principles of the constitution." Furthermore, those that have been proposed have no popular acceptance. Even those who dedicate themselves full time to the subject can't agree on principles. The founding fathers couldn't. All of them, in one way or another compromised some of their own positions and finally agreed only to the Constitution. Many quite reluctantly at that.
Now I have known radical anarchist Libertarians who support the Constitution while working for its elimination. And I have known libertarian minarchists who believe in government as an ends, who do not support the Constitution. And all that addresses only libertarians, a small fraction of that part of society concerned with such matters.
As far as conflict between the articles of the Constitution and ones personal beliefs go, I and most all libertarians have lots of them. But most of us believe the best way to resolve those conflicting differences, at this time, is by constitutionally allowable means.
More than once on this thread I see you have posted the words:
We are all obligated to support our Constitution as the "Law of the Land" as per Article VI.
Article VI sets out who is "obligated to support" the Constitution, the people are specifically not included. Thus you are quite wrong regarding Article VI. Go re-read it.
As a Libertarian supporter of the Constitution, I look forward to all the changes and amendments that we will ultimately bring to the Constitution. But those are all for the future, when the people are ready for it. When they are demanding it.
As for now, in my life time, I am very leery of any changes being instituted. I just look forward to seeing our republic remain strong and at least as free as it is now. I also in the immediate sense, look forward to a doubling or possibly tripling of the population of those who understand what libertarianism is and how it would work.
Initially I see an immediate problem addressing this idea of yours. First off, there are no specifically set out "principles of the constitution."
They exist [some enumerated, some not] in the Constitution & its Amendments themselves, as Jon Roland explained.
Furthermore, those that have been proposed have no popular acceptance. Even those who dedicate themselves full time to the subject can't agree on principles. The founding fathers couldn't. All of them, in one way or another compromised some of their own positions and finally agreed only to the Constitution. Many quite reluctantly at that.
But they did agree, in principle, that all men have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. - All else follows.
Now I have known radical anarchist Libertarians who support the Constitution while working for its elimination. And I have known libertarian minarchists who believe in government as an ends, who do not support the Constitution. And all that addresses only libertarians, a small fraction of that part of society concerned with such matters.
So? You've made no point. -- We do have Constitutional principles that we are all obliged to follow.
As far as conflict between the articles of the Constitution and ones personal beliefs go, I and most all libertarians have lots of them. But most of us believe the best way to resolve those conflicting differences, at this time, is by constitutionally allowable means.
Congrats, -- that's just what I've been saying here all along.
More than once on this thread I see you have posted the words:
We are all obligated to support our Constitution as the "Law of the Land" as per Article VI. -- Indeed I have.
Article VI sets out who is "obligated to support" the Constitution, the people are specifically not included.
Not true. While judges & all fed & state officials are specifically included, it does not specify any exclusions.
It's logically obvious that everyone in the USA is obligated to support the "Law of the Land". -- It is not logical that some people are exempt, and can ignore our Constitutions principles.
They exist [some enumerated, some not] in the Constitution & its Amendments themselves..."
Its quite apparent, by my next four sentence of that paragraph that their are constitutional principles, as I stated that "those that have been proposed" lack popular acceptance and can not even agreed upon by those who dedicate themselves to the subject. As far as making the point that some of the principles are enumerated in the Constitution, I didn't say they weren't. My reply here was in light of your use of the words "principles of the constitution" and not the Constitution itself. I would say that such a distinction is appropriate as much of what you refer to as "principles of the constitution" is not in the Constitution. Which you also concede.
But they did agree, in principle, that all men have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. - All else follows.
I agree that they agreed with the principle that all men have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I do not agree that all else follows. Especially if all else includes this vague notion of "principles of the constitution."
So? You've made no point.
The point I was making about libertarians, was that even within a particular faction, of a very small party and movement, considerable disagreement can be found over supporting the Constitution or not. Such disagreements could easily be multiplied many many times if we expand the discussion from the Constitution to a broader "principles of the constitution."
Your prior statement that "we are all obligated to support our Constitution as the 'Law of the Land'" as per Article VI," with the now concession that the people are specifically not included, but are still so obligated as that article "does not specify any exclusions," sounds a lot like a judicial activist position to me.
Your statement that it is "logically obvious that everyone in the USA is obligated to support the "Law of the Land," was not supported with argument or explanation. Your merely stating such does not make it so.
Members of the underground railroad throughout the northern states did, not only, not support the laws of the land, they violated such laws as their conscience dictated, in their active role of smuggling run a way slaves to freedom in Canada. So also today, their are people whose conscience dictates that they also can not support the laws of the land. As a member of a jury, I'd convict them of any violation of such laws. But I can not condemn them for not supporting that which they do not believe in or agree with. I for one, am very thankful that our founding fathers also did not come to such a conclusion.
I have never implied that people are "exempt" from the laws of the land, as you imply.
I agree that they agreed with the principle that all men have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I do not agree that all else follows. Especially if all else includes this vague notion of "principles of the constitution."
Our Constitutions principles are not "vague" at all. You just imagine them that way because it suits your politics.
________________________________________
You've made no point. -- We do have Constitutional principles that we are all obliged to follow.
The point I was making about libertarians, was that even within a particular faction, of a very small party and movement, considerable disagreement can be found over supporting the Constitution or not.
So what? Every political movement has odd factions.
Such disagreements could easily be multiplied many many times if we expand the discussion from the Constitution to a broader "principles of the constitution."
Your comment does not make a valid counter argument to the issue about our Constitutions principles. -- Try to focus yourself.
Your prior statement that "we are all obligated to support our Constitution as the 'Law of the Land'" as per Article VI," with the now concession that the people are specifically not included, but are still so obligated as that article "does not specify any exclusions," sounds a lot like a judicial activist position to me.
It's logically obvious that everyone in the USA is obligated to support the "Law of the Land". -- It is not logical that some people are exempt, and can ignore our Constitutions principles.
Your statement that it is "logically obvious that everyone in the USA is obligated to support the "Law of the Land," was not supported with argument or explanation. Your merely stating such does not make it so.
Not true. While judges & all fed & state officials are specifically included, Article VI does not specify any exclusions. -- Everyone in the USA is subject to laws "made in Pursusance thereof" --- of Constitutional principles.
I have never implied that people are "exempt" from the laws of the land, as you imply.
Whatever. You're playing wordgames again. That tactic is getting old.
Were there Constitutional principles of liberty at odds with other "principles of the Constitution", the latter yielding " 'exceptional' property rights " of slave owners?
Oh. When you use the the words "Constitutional principles" they are most certainly vague. First off you have interchangeably used on this thread Constitutional principles, laws of the land, and even the Constitution itself. You have also used the same term "Constitutional principles" for describing that well written concise piece the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles." In short it is impossible to know what you are talking about when you use the two word term "Constitutional principles." I call that vague.
Your delusion of grandeur really shows itself, especially in how you handle almost every disagreement with you. That is that you turn so many of the disagreements with you into a disagreements with the constitution and/or the Constitutional principles. You are not the walking embodiment of the Constitution and its principles.
Then we have your continual taking statements out of context, often leaving out the key qualifiers of such statements. It quite obvious that you do this so as to make to make it possible to avoid hard considerations and enabling you then to either repeat your self or make sniffling comments to the challenges you could not answer. Your sophistry is not very convincing.
I see that your fondness for repeating your self over and over again has not subsided. As you now demonstrate by repeating that earlier discredited notion that while "judges & all fed & state officials are specifically included, Article VI does not specify any exclusions." I see that you ran at high speed from the challenge that this interpretation of Article VI is nothing more than judicial activism. Cowering from that challenge, you immediately put forth the very vague and phony statement that "--Everyone in the USA is subject to laws 'made in Pursusance thereof' --- of Constitutional principles." What ever you want that to mean at some later juncture.
Then as a final quote of me, not taken out of context, that "I have never implied that people are "exempt" from the laws of the land, as you imply." Your answer was most enjoyable:
Whatever. You're playing wordgames again. That tactic is getting old.
You know everyone makes mistakes from time to time, don't get so upset when someone points out one of yours. Life does go on. Enjoy it.
>>> Are there principles superior to the "principles of the Constitution"?
There should be no conflict between the "principles of the Constitution" and any that you might personally believe "superior".
If you see such a conflict, perhaps you should re-examine your concepts about both. -- I've heard that military Chaplin's are very good at explaining how duty to our country & Constitution can be reconciled with an individuals personal beliefs.
Were there Constitutional principles of liberty at odds with other "principles of the Constitution",
? -- That line is nonsense as you've written it, as principles cannot be at odds with each other.
the latter yielding " 'exceptional' property rights " of slave owners?
By accepting the peculiar institution as 'legal' under the Constitution, - the framers acknowledged that some humans did not have life & liberty, -- that they were property.. This was an exception to the rule.. Get it yet?
[not that you haven't all along, and are just belaboring the point]
Oh. When you use the the words "Constitutional principles" they are most certainly vague.
Only to you.
First off you have interchangeably used on this thread Constitutional principles, laws of the land, and even the Constitution itself. You have also used the same term "Constitutional principles" for describing that well written concise piece the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles." In short it is impossible to know what you are talking about when you use the two word term "Constitutional principles." I call that vague.
Yes, you do.. -- Now, moving on --
Your delusion of grandeur really shows itself, especially in how you handle almost every disagreement with you. That is that you turn so many of the disagreements with you into a disagreements with the constitution and/or the Constitutional principles.
I posted a thread about our Constitutions principles. Now you seem bent on turning it into a flame fest with personal insults.
You are not the walking embodiment of the Constitution and its principles. Then we have your continual taking statements out of context, often leaving out the key qualifiers of such statements. It quite obvious that you do this so as to make to make it possible to avoid hard considerations and enabling you then to either repeat your self or make sniffling comments to the challenges you could not answer. Your sophistry is not very convincing. I see that your fondness for repeating your self over and over again has not subsided. As you now demonstrate by repeating that earlier discredited notion that
Dream on that you've discredited Article VI, wherein "judges & all fed & state officials are specifically included; -- Article VI does not specify any exclusions."
I see that you ran at high speed from the challenge that this interpretation of Article VI is nothing more than judicial activism.
Your off the wall opinion that I or Roland interpret Article VI as authorizing activism is not a 'challenge', its ludicrous.
Cowering from that challenge, you immediately put forth the very vague and phony statement that "--Everyone in the USA is subject to laws 'made in Pursusance thereof' --- of Constitutional principles."
Yep, everyone must obey valid Constitutional laws. - That is NOT a vague & phony statement..
What ever you want that to mean at some later juncture. Then as a final quote of me, not taken out of context, that "I have never implied that people are "exempt" from the laws of the land, as you imply." Your answer was most enjoyable: Whatever. You're playing wordgames again. That tactic is getting old. You know everyone makes mistakes from time to time, don't get so upset when someone points out one of yours. Life does go on. Enjoy it.
I enjoy it a lot, and one of my joys are reading your funny little rants.
Thanks..
I think the founders might have had different principles that yielded the Constitutional acceptance of slavery. The antislavery founders may have seen that the principle of a strong national self defense as superior to freedom for slaves. Given the choice of a larger and hence stronger nation vs a smaller and hence weaker nation, they chose the latter.
They judged that excluding the slave states would make the nation weaker, and chose the Constitutional principle of a strong national defense over, in this case, the conflicting Constitutional principle (that you see) that would have yielded freedom for the slaves.
The pro-slavery founders may have seen the Constitution as allowing the sovereign states to live by the "principle of slavery" that Henry Wise, Congressman (and future governor) from Virginia, spoke of sometime in the 1830's: "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men."
By accepting the peculiar institution as 'legal' under the Constitution, - the framers acknowledged that some humans did not have life & liberty, -- that they were property.. This was an exception to the rule.. Get it yet?
I don't get it yet. The founders had all kinds of exceptions to equality under the law and applied the law to various classes of humans in various ways. Examples: Minors, women, and men without property.
"The antislavery founders may have seen that the principle of a strong national self defense as superior to freedom for slaves. Given the choice of a larger and hence stronger nation vs a smaller and hence weaker nation, they chose the latter former.
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.