Does libertarianism just shift tyranny from the government to individuals?

CAC1001

Somalia is a case of no government, not limited government.

ApplePion

"As pointed out, the main intention of the second amendment was a final check against tyranny. At the time, the states were wary of a federal dictatorship. In order for the amendment to serve this purpose, the public must have access to weapons that could at least offer some resistance against the government."

This is extraordinarily incorrect, and so typical of the libertarian perspectve.

The Second Amendment mentions the importance of militias. Later in the Constitution, under the powers.duties of the Congress, it gives Congress the pwer to call out the militia to PUT DOWN uprising. Psrt of the intend of the Second Amendment was to STOP people like you.

mheslep

Yet after the militia clause, the amendment states "The right of the people [not militias]to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first two sentences of Galteeth's post have substantial historical support, in particular the reluctance to create any federal government at all for twelve years after the Declaration.

BTW those sentences are not contradictory with the first two sentences of your last paragraph. Yes the US founders were concerned in detail with preventing tyranny via an insurrectionist, factional public, and from a rogue government. They were even aware of the threat from insurrectionist bombers via the likes of the Guy Fawkes 1605 attempt to bomb the English House of Lords.

ApplePion

""The right of the people [not militias]to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So? It says the people have that right because militias are so important. And it later says that Congress should call out militias to STOP insurrections.

I can even make it simpler: The Constitution says that Congress should stop insurrections.

You see what you want to see. I am reminded of Ron Paul's fans, as he lost state after state after state, insisting "Dr." Paul had the nomination locked up because it was "the delegates that mattered".

"The first two sentences of Galteeth's post have substantial historical support, in particular the reluctance to create any federal government at all for twelve years after the Declaration. "

The Constitution was created to REMEDY a lack of a federal government, and you cvonstrue the situation as somehow being that the Constitution was for the thing it CHANGED.

mheslep

Yes that's correct. However, A1 S8 does not say, "the right to bear arms is granted solely to enable congress to suppress rebellion."

Clearly, that's a truism.

You misconstrue. Again, the federal government was created reluctantly, hence the attempt at the looser Articles of Confederation, hence the Federalist debates, or per Paine:

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

Ryan_m_b

A simple observation: what makes you equate government with tyranny aren't you forgetting democracy (which exists in a myriad of forms both in real life and proposed with huge variation in practice and theory)? Are you refering to how governments can be the mouthpieces of public tyranny?

I'm not defending libertarianism here (it's quite far from my personal views) but this question seems poorly formed. A better way to address the spirit of your question would be to look at what accountability a libertarian society may have verses one with a greater public sector/government regulation.

russ_watters

I think the OP was just trying to say, that any government can have tyrany, not intending to imply that they must.

Logically, though, your objection raises a good point: a dictatorship can oppress everyone, while a democracy can oppress at most half, so that on its own is a big improvement.

And, of course, one of the ke functions of the US Constitution is to try to protect that half (or 1% or whatever).

Artus

Socialism and Corporatism are very strong around the World, Libertarianism won't have a place so easily. Freedom goes hand to hand with responsibility, and the interesting question is, if people is willing to take responsibility for their own actions instead being proctected by their government.

chiro

Great comment.

Lots of people think freedom is this magical thing that is without constraint or consequence which is completely irresponsible and delusional to begin with.

Skyler0114

Yea. Freedom is the responsibility to make your own decisions and live with the consequences of it.
EDIT: oops, didn't see the comment above until i clicked post

SixNein

I think it's the oldest constitution still enforced. If we were going to write a new constitution, we probably would look at more modern attempts. For example, we'd probably expand on human rights. I could think of a Gay rights clause off the top of my head.

Our constitution is an organizational document but quite difficult to amend. Could you imagine an amendment being passed in our political environment?

Galteeth

It being the oldest could be seen as a positive. Modern isn't necessarily better. Interesting you mention the Gay rights clause. A libertarian would probably put it differently, a freedom of sexuality clause. I have as much right to hook up with a dude as a homosexual does:)

Ryan_m_b

So freedom is being denied medical care because your actions led you to getting hurt? After all if someone does something to mitigate living with the consequences they're taking away your freedom not any definition of freedom I'd ever use. When discussing issues like this I find terms like negative and positive liberty to be more useful.

SixNein

Yes and no. Knowledge has progressed over 300 years, but timing is also important. I think we'd be risking an establishment of religion should we make the effort today.

Yes, the clause would be generalized but at the same time prohibiting the exploitation of minors.

Ryan_m_b

Prohibiting sexual activity without consent would be better and then having a legally defined age of consent. This way you cover everything from sexual assault to necrophilia.

Skyler0114

Of course context and perspective are essential to having freedom. Equal opportunity is a key aspect to being free, but what you do with that opportunity shapes your destiny. More social freedom means more responsibility and being able to handle what comes from your position without help from society. A person living out of society is free from any institution holding him down but has to be self sufficient and be able to survive on his own.
There are points where too much personal freedom (which can be partially provided by society) can lead to less social freedom. Welfare from the state can open avenues that were never possible, but can also form a dependency on the state that inhibits social freedom and your expression of it. I think the real challenge that most people need to ask themselves is how much of both they want and what they are willing to do for it.

Ryan_m_b

I reject this definition. I don't see this as desirable (if you want to do it fine but leave others out of it) nor do I think it makes any sense. "Society" is a collaborative entity, in the context of your definition it seems like you mean "freedom" from society rather than within it. When discussing issues of which freedom is an issue such as speech, health, life, clothing, social interaction etc I don't see how this definition would help anyone.
Welfare removes freedom? So if someone was born with a congenital disease, lost most of their family, couldn't get a job to sustain themselves (etc) you would deny them welfare because it would inhibit their freedom?

Rather than continue down this pointless lane I'm just going to refer you back to my former post. Those are far better terms to use when discussing freedom than this (which seems like a close synonym for "self-sufficiency").