News Does libertarianism just shift tyranny from the government to individuals?

[Ryan_m_b]

More social freedom means more responsibility and being able to handle what comes from your position without help from society.

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 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.

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").

 

[chiro]

You have collective responsibility and personal responsibility: personal is something we can look after but collective is something different.

Ultimately the collective stems from the sum of all personal actions so when everyone does the best to take their own responsibility not only for themselves but how that translates into other things, then this is a way to indirectly show a contribution to collective responsibility.

I think this whole game we are playing is one an experiment to teach us about freedom and especially what the consequences are of not only our personal actions but how all these actions relate to the actions of everyone else: i.e. just a way to teach us about cause and effect and like Sklyer0114 said: the ability to do things and live through their consequences.

With regard to your welfare comment, I think you should use your own insight and see it from the collective set of all actions that are somehow integrated into the complex mechanisms of societal structure that we see today.

We offer welfare if we believe in such a thing (and many of us do) and I think if you ask a lot of people why they would support and not support something, the most important questions to ask include "Would you like the outcome if it happened to you?" (this is probably the best way to judge equity under uncertainty especially when everyone agrees but then again this is hard) and most importantly "Has it happened to you?" or a weak version would be "Have you been around someone that has experienced it?"

Personal responsibility forces the individual to consider the consequences of their actions and social responsibility forces them to consider how their actions have a ripple effect everywhere else.

The thing though is that we all have different experiences and are moulded in different ways so the only real definite way to get even some insight into the experiences with others is through some form of highly concentrated empathy (and I don't mean this BS of comforting someone who's husband died: anyone can do that).

Some might say that the social responsibility is then largely taking the time out to think of what others have gone through so that the personal actions can be considered in the context of these outcomes.

Unfortunately we have a lot of people who just don't know any better and if they are kept in the dark of what the real world is like (both good and bad), their own actions will reflect the absence of this knowledge and likely result in things that others with such experience or knowledge may despise: the best we can do is not to expect them to follow what we say, but just to tell them what is going on so that they can make up their mind and ultimately at the end of the day, they do.

No one is an island though, and in hindsight I think it's a good thing: the reason why a lot of stuff is so screwed up is because people are so ignorant of what is really happening out there in the real world, and as a result things as so distorted as to cause many people to not only make certain decisions but to support collectively others making similar ones.

 

[Skyler0114]

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").

I never said that welfare removes freedom, that is a fallacy. You took my statement that there exists a subset of people on welfare who lose freedom by becoming so dependent on the state. Instead you are saying I said that being on welfare implies you have less freedom, which is not true. It can provide you with more freedom (fix a broken leg, treat an illness) but it can at the same time make you a slave to the system.
I never said that either is a bad thing or that they are the only forms of freedom, only that freedom has checks and balances within it.

 

[Skyler0114]

You have collective responsibility and personal responsibility: personal is something we can look after but collective is something different.

Ultimately the collective stems from the sum of all personal actions so when everyone does the best to take their own responsibility not only for themselves but how that translates into other things, then this is a way to indirectly show a contribution to collective responsibility.

I think this whole game we are playing is one an experiment to teach us about freedom and especially what the consequences are of not only our personal actions but how all these actions relate to the actions of everyone else: i.e. just a way to teach us about cause and effect and like Sklyer0114 said: the ability to do things and live through their consequences.

With regard to your welfare comment, I think you should use your own insight and see it from the collective set of all actions that are somehow integrated into the complex mechanisms of societal structure that we see today.

We offer welfare if we believe in such a thing (and many of us do) and I think if you ask a lot of people why they would support and not support something, the most important questions to ask include "Would you like the outcome if it happened to you?" (this is probably the best way to judge equity under uncertainty especially when everyone agrees but then again this is hard) and most importantly "Has it happened to you?" or a weak version would be "Have you been around someone that has experienced it?"

Personal responsibility forces the individual to consider the consequences of their actions and social responsibility forces them to consider how their actions have a ripple effect everywhere else.

The thing though is that we all have different experiences and are moulded in different ways so the only real definite way to get even some insight into the experiences with others is through some form of highly concentrated empathy (and I don't mean this BS of comforting someone who's husband died: anyone can do that).

Some might say that the social responsibility is then largely taking the time out to think of what others have gone through so that the personal actions can be considered in the context of these outcomes.

Unfortunately we have a lot of people who just don't know any better and if they are kept in the dark of what the real world is like (both good and bad), their own actions will reflect the absence of this knowledge and likely result in things that others with such experience or knowledge may despise: the best we can do is not to expect them to follow what we say, but just to tell them what is going on so that they can make up their mind and ultimately at the end of the day, they do.

No one is an island though, and in hindsight I think it's a good thing: the reason why a lot of stuff is so screwed up is because people are so ignorant of what is really happening out there in the real world, and as a result things as so distorted as to cause many people to not only make certain decisions but to support collectively others making similar ones.

Well thought out analysis.
It's nice to see that someone took the time to try and see what I was saying. As am I glad someone was able to bring empathy into this discussion. It is such a crucial part of the human experience, I can't even begin to describe it. I know some of my comments make it sound as though I'm saying everyone should really be on their own, but that's completely not what I mean.

I believe that given an opportunity, a person can truly do great things, but we need the freedom to innovate society on our own terms. Society should be what each individual wants to make out of it, and institutionalizing our society and forcing people into the structure should not be desirable in a truly free society. Trying to take another's freedom should not be tolerated, unless the actions of that person's freedom will deprive others of their freedom. We should be free to decide what we define our society as.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I never said that welfare removes freedom, that is a fallacy. You took my statement that there exists a subset of people on welfare who lose freedom by becoming so dependent on the state. Instead you are saying I said that being on welfare implies you have less freedom, which is not true. It can provide you with more freedom (fix a broken leg, treat an illness) but it can at the same time make you a slave to the system.
I never said that either is a bad thing or that they are the only forms of freedom, only that freedom has checks and balances within it.

This doesn't seem to match up with what you've said previously but ok. I still don't agree that welfare ever removes your freedom. If there is a reason that you can't leave welfare then whatever that factor is is what is removing your freedom.

Trying to take another's freedom should not be tolerated, unless the actions of that person's freedom will deprive others of their freedom. We should be free to decide what we define our society as.

In my experience very few people disagree with this but what they define as depriving of freedom and how they rate said deprivation can be very different. Person A may argue that the fact that mimimum wage deprives them of their freedom to offer what they want for an employee makes it wrong, however person B may argue that mimimum wage results in greater freedom for the most amount of people by reducing the chance of economic oppression.

 

[russ_watters]

RE: welfare removing freedom: Ryan, do you consider taxes and elimination of choice to be a reduction of freedom? To me it would appear that social programs reduce negative liberty through taxes and loss of choice, while increasing positive liberty. And, of course, the people having negative freedom reduced and those having positive freedom increased are two different groups. And that last part doesn't play well with what you said about deprivation of freedom. You gave an example that supports your view, but it wasn't relevant to the topic at hand. Minimum wage laws protect negative liberty, but positive liberty for one usually comes at the expense of negative liberty for another...unless, of course, we abandon some traditional forms of liberty.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

RE: welfare removing freedom: Ryan, do you consider taxes and elimination of choice to be a reduction of freedom? To me it would appear that social programs reduce negative liberty through taxes and loss of choice, while increasing positive liberty. And, of course, the people having negative freedom reduced and those having positive freedom increased are two different groups. And that last part doesn't play well with what you said about deprivation of freedom. You gave an example that supports your view, but it wasn't relevant to the topic at hand. Minimum wage laws protect negative liberty, but positive liberty for one usually comes at the expense of negative liberty for another...unless, of course, we abandon some traditional forms of liberty.

We're mostly in agreement here. Increases in some forms of freedom can come at the expense of others. Whether or not one believes that is justified depends first on ones morals and second on the evidence that points to whether or not those actions help achieve moral goals.

 

[russ_watters]

Fair enough. Extending that, I'd say that while Western political history/theory/development from Hobbes to about 1900 focused almost exclusively on protection of negative liberty, the past 100 years has seen provision of positive liberty go from virtually nonexistent to elevation above negative liberty in many cases. Your opinion?

 

[russ_watters]

Extending further, while I think few people would disagree that providing needs to the truly needy serves a moral good, where we would disagree is:
1. What is true need?
2. Should gov't provide beyond true need?
3. How much negative liberty should be sacrificed to achieve these?

 

[Oltz]

Extending further, while I think few people would disagree that providing needs to the truly needy serves a moral good, where we would disagree is:
1. What is true need?
2. Should gov't provide beyond true need?
3. How much negative liberty should be sacrificed to achieve these?

1. How can we even determine this when a majority still define "poverty" as a percent of average income regardless of quality of life? The "poor" now live better then the majority did 80 years ago. Being poor and being in poverty are not the same.

2. No.

3. As little as possible.

The key moment in history for that philosophical change in our governments role was the passage of the 16th amendment in 1913 changing how the federal government receives funds. Prior to that they needed to bill each state based on its census population and the states raised the funds by what ever means each state legislature had agreed upon.

Once state taxes and federal taxes were divorced the federal government was able to give itself more money any time it needed it by simply adding a new tax or fee. Thus starting the tax and spend cycle. Paving the way for the predicted demise of democracy in the famous quotes about candidates buying votes with other peoples money and the majority realizing they can vote themselves money.

By the way some states funded through taxes others with tolls and fees for licensing (barber, hunting, liquor) the key being that the constitution had given the federal government strict limits on its ability to directly raise funds as a check against governments accumulation of power (tyranny)

The 17th Amendment completed the task by making state senators elected by popular votes instead of chosen by state legislature. This made the senate more susceptible to the innate desire to favor certain constituencies and certain parts of their state that had larger populations and more easily influenced by the public instead of answering to a more equally distributed legislature and governor who had the express task of watching over the shoulders of the senators.

The write up on wiki for the 17th is actually pretty good.

As well as a decline in the influence of the states, Ure also argues that the Seventeenth Amendment led to the rise of special interest groups to fill the void; with citizens replacing state legislators as the Senate's electorate, with citizens being less able to monitor the actions of their Senators, the Senate became more susceptible to pressure from interest groups, who in turn were more influential due to the centralization of power in the federal government; an interest group no longer needed to lobby many state legislatures, and could instead focus its efforts on the federal government.

 

[mheslep]

I find idea that "welfare" never "removes freedom" frustrating. The decades of experience with welfare, followed later by reform, grant us a good data set to show the effects of welfare dependency and all that goes with it: http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/437DD129D95AFA07970E510BB332B650.jpg, increased http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/~/media/Images/Reports/2001/The%20Effects%20of%20Welfare%20Reform/effectswelfarereformchart3.ashx?w=400&h=515&as=1. To my mind these afflictions are also loss of freedom, brought about by state action.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Fair enough. Extending that, I'd say that while Western political history/theory/development from Hobbes to about 1900 focused almost exclusively on protection of negative liberty, the past 100 years has seen provision of positive liberty go from virtually nonexistent to elevation above negative liberty in many cases. Your opinion?

I'm not sure I know enough about the history of the various countries to comment.

Extending further, while I think few people would disagree that providing needs to the truly needy serves a moral good, where we would disagree is:
1. What is true need?

That's a very hard question. To be honest I'd rather not use the term need at all because it's largely arbitrary; some would say that need is purely the physical needs of food, safety, healthcare etc but others (me amongst them) would go on to include economic and social needs. Human beings have more needs to live fulfilling lives than is usually thought. I'd say a need is something that is necessary to allow you to live to fulfilled, prosperous and healthy life. It's easier to work out on a case by case basis but to be honest I think we lack a suitable metric by which to measure it by.

2. Should gov't provide beyond true need?

In a democratic setting in theory a government is what the majority of people taking part want it to be (that includes majority support for legislation to avoid majority rule). In terms of providing I'd like to replace that with the term "take steps to ensure/enhance". Going back to the idea of a metric if we did have a technique that we use to measure a range of things from underemployment rates to happiness levels I'd say a governments role is to ensure ever higher scores on that metric.

3. How much negative liberty should be sacrificed to achieve these?

It's largely incomparable without a good metric and some data to look at. If we just took a simple metric like GDP per capita then we might as a question a long the lines of "would GDP per capita increase/decrease if we took X% from these people and used it to educate these people?" Does that make sense?

 

[Skyler0114]

Quite frankly, as a person living in the US I think our system so backwards. Welfare can go awry and when it does it can be debilitating to the individuals involved. Apparently student loans for a masters degree can count as benefits that interfere with welfare. Here is an example of what I mean:
http://familyfraud.com/i-need-legal-advice-i-have-been-accused-of-welfare-fraud-because-of-college-loans.htm
Personally I think that student loans should not be considered welfare in any sense of the word. It's a loan.

Our health care system is completely backwards, with the majority of medicine being focused on treating symptoms, not the disease itself or the sources of disease. Instead of producing healthy citizens it's only there to treat us once we get sick. Instead institutions that promote poor health are either grandfathered into our society or are integrated into our society.

Our agricultural backbone is buckling from the effects of genetically modified food, which ironically ties back into topics. I honestly don't see how one can claim that food that enables higher concentrations of pesticides within food, or provides the plant the ability to produce pesticide, should not be subject to long term studies before being deployed into the agricultural infrastructure of our country. If there is even a few studies that indicate a new product is dangerous to consumers, why should it be allowed into the market? How does being forced to buy seeds every crop cycle due to the plants being sterile decrease costs to farmers?

Our environmental policies are very weak. Corporations causing terrible environmental damage, such as hydraulic fracturing go on with little issue even when they refuse to acknowledge the existence of dangerous chemicals in their "fracking fluid" or the fact it gets absorbed into farmers groundwater. Those times that the government steps in the companies are given a slap on the wrist. Ranchers with animals dying due to contaminated groundwater are provided with water as the frackers continue to frack up the local ecosystem.

If anyone wants to nitpick with the last 3 points just know that this isn't uneducated blabber, and that I've spent months looking at evidence in those areas (and a lot more). You will kind of open up a flood gate if you decide to debate on those, and I really would rather not think about such sad things. But, I digress. The "safety net" that the US government is allegedly producing has so much wrong with it that its only going to get worse if we continue to expand it without doing ALOT of house cleaning first.

 

[Oltz]

Quite frankly, as a person living in the US I think our system so backwards. Welfare can go awry and when it does it can be debilitating to the individuals involved. Apparently student loans for a masters degree can count as benefits that interfere with welfare. Here is an example of what I mean:
http://familyfraud.com/i-need-legal-advice-i-have-been-accused-of-welfare-fraud-because-of-college-loans.htm
Personally I think that student loans should not be considered welfare in any sense of the word. It's a loan.

Our health care system is completely backwards, with the majority of medicine being focused on treating symptoms, not the disease itself or the sources of disease. Instead of producing healthy citizens it's only there to treat us once we get sick. Instead institutions that promote poor health are either grandfathered into our society or are integrated into our society.

Our agricultural backbone is buckling from the effects of genetically modified food, which ironically ties back into topics. I honestly don't see how one can claim that food that enables higher concentrations of pesticides within food, or provides the plant the ability to produce pesticide, should not be subject to long term studies before being deployed into the agricultural infrastructure of our country. If there is even a few studies that indicate a new product is dangerous to consumers, why should it be allowed into the market? How does being forced to buy seeds every crop cycle due to the plants being sterile decrease costs to farmers?

Our environmental policies are very weak. Corporations causing terrible environmental damage, such as hydraulic fracturing go on with little issue even when they refuse to acknowledge the existence of dangerous chemicals in their "fracking fluid" or the fact it gets absorbed into farmers groundwater. Those times that the government steps in the companies are given a slap on the wrist. Ranchers with animals dying due to contaminated groundwater are provided with water as the frackers continue to frack up the local ecosystem.

If anyone wants to nitpick with the last 3 points just know that this isn't uneducated blabber, and that I've spent months looking at evidence in those areas (and a lot more). You will kind of open up a flood gate if you decide to debate on those, and I really would rather not think about such sad things. But, I digress. The "safety net" that the US government is allegedly producing has so much wrong with it that its only going to get worse if we continue to expand it without doing ALOT of house cleaning first.

First I would love to see sources for any of this.

Second the reason our medical care focuses on symptoms is that is what consumers are willing to pay for to get remedy the market pushed care in that direction. Think about it many people I know will spend 20 dollars a month treating a symptom instead of thousands up front for a cure, but there is another reason I personally need major back surgery but I would not be able to even start rehab for a year and then would need months of rehab before I could go back to work. I can not afford to be off work that long can you ? so I treat the symptoms as best I can.

Third every plant an animal we currently produce can be considered GMO due to selective breading even "wild rice" is not wild rice. With out GMO crops modern machinery and irrigation the world would starve. Per acre pesticide use is down in the US from pest resistant crops AFAIK.

Fourth Show me one case where "livestock was killed due to groundwater contamination" the only cases I know of where livestock was harmed were actually surface spills. Which if you have ever been in industry you know can not be completely avoided only mitigated as best as possible. I also have never seen a single test showing frac chemicals in ground water. There are plenty of cases of Methane in water but that obviously is not a frac chemical. Lastly http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used the chemicals are easily available at several registries like the one linked to help with confusion you look at a list like that and any given job will select 4 or 5 chemicals off of that list and they are added to water at ratios in the 1 to 2 gallons per thousand gallons of water. They are then pumped a mile underground where they mix with millions of gallons of brine (salt) water that are already present at that depth making the chemicals highly dilute and frankly very far from any potable water. Failed casing and cement jobs can and hve casued issues but again these are not "fracking" problems they are drilling and well integrity problems.

My degree is environmental geology and I work for a natural gas producer in PA. I am not sure what any of these points has to do with the election but I am curious. I will have any conversation you like in PM.

 

[Galteeth]

Extending further, while I think few people would disagree that providing needs to the truly needy serves a moral good, where we would disagree is:
1. What is true need?
2. Should gov't provide beyond true need?
3. How much negative liberty should be sacrificed to achieve these?

Yes, this is a point a lot of people miss in the debate. "Welfare" and collective interest do not necessarily have to come from government. I think in many ways, pawning off social problems on the government makes people less inclined to the collective interest, as in "that's the government's problem, not mine." I think it's a pretty dim view of humanity that says no one would ever help anyone else unless they're forced to do so at gunpoint.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, this is a point a lot of people miss in the debate. "Welfare" and collective interest do not necessarily have to come from government. I think in many ways, pawning off social problems on the government makes people less inclined to the collective interest, as in "that's the government's problem, not mine." I think it's a pretty dim view of humanity that says no one would ever help anyone else unless they're forced to do so at gunpoint.

I think that's a mischaracterisation of taxes and how people perceive but regardless charities do not raise as much money as governments in similar fields and I don't see that they would necessarily if governments weren't responsible for those fields. Take healthcare for example in countries with no universal healthcare schemes. Are there charities that attract enough money to provide for those who can't pay?

 

[jduster]

The answer is yes.

 

[Angry Citizen]

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.

I believe that this has become a naive view, given that the killing capacity of firearms has improved markedly since the late 18th century, and given that the military could stomp the populace of America with relative ease despite the prevalence of high-powered munitions in the public domain.

Furthermore, I believe the Second Amendment was clearly intended to support the use of well-regulated militias, not Joe Six-Pack having a Howitzer in his backyard. We have well-regulated militias - they're known as the National Guard. Does anyone seriously believe the Texas National Guard will ever fire a shot in anger at the United States Army, even if the United States becomes a tyranny?

 

[Angry Citizen]

The answer is yes.

Pre-Government Welfare: Gilded Age.

Post-Government Welfare: Highest average standard of living in the entirety of history.

History speaks for itself on this position.

 

[mheslep]

Pre-Government Welfare: Gilded Age.

Post-Government Welfare: Highest average standard of living in the entirety of history.

History speaks for itself on this position.

After the fact, therefore because of the fact fallacy.

 

[Angry Citizen]

After the fact, therefore because of the fact fallacy.

You claim, then, that we cannot ascertain the benefits of programs which specifically target a problem by analyzing how the problem became less of a problem after the implementation of said program?

Well now, I think this debate has gone far enough then. Since we're seemingly beyond the point wherein evidence is admissible, there's no way for anyone to claim anything.

 

[mheslep]

You claim, then, that we cannot ascertain the benefits of programs which specifically target a problem by analyzing how the problem became less of a problem after the implementation of said program?

No, not by that alone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL_vHDjG5Wk

Well now, I think this debate has gone far enough then. Since we're seemingly beyond the point wherein evidence is admissible, there's no way for anyone to claim anything.

Evidence is hard, confirmation of belief is easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment

 

[Angry Citizen]

Evidence is hard, confirmation of belief is easy.

I used to be a libertarian. No confirmation of belief here.

 

[mheslep]

I used to be a libertarian. No confirmation of belief here.

Unavoidable. Everywhere.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Then in lieu of being able to ascertain the effect of our policies, I don't think anyone has a reasonable argument whether one political belief system is more "right" than others. This again rather invalidates debate, so I think I'll move on.

 

[Gale]

So... Back to libertarianism...

Being raised in New Hampshire, which is arguably the most libertarian state in the country, I have different thoughts about it. Notably, New Hampshire lacks many of the laws that other states in the country have implemented, and yet still manages to be at the top of most lists that compare states according to their living standards, education, economy, etc.

Firstly, I feel like most people confuse libertariansm with anarchy, which has been suggested already. Less government is not the same as No government. Also, regarding anarchy, many seem to think that anarchy is some horrible system that is doomed to fail, however, I would point out that the current international system is anarchic, and while yes, there are many problems associated with international relations (as there are within any system), the system is not entirely disorderly either. I could have whole discussions about that... but sticking to the topic...

Libertarianism actually advocates a very strong federal government, but with very specific and limited powers and goals. Indeed, the premise behind such a government is to prevent tyranny at any level. The ideal system would grant federal powers the ability to prevent "small" tyrannies at local levels, but also limit the federal powers themselves as not to become tyrannical. Ron Paul's personal ideology may seem to imply the necessary shift of tyranny from the government to individuals, but that is one man's vision of libertarian ism implemented. Not the necessary implication from the theoretical system of libertarianism itself.

 

[russ_watters]

Pre-Government Welfare: Gilded Age.

Post-Government Welfare: Highest average standard of living in the entirety of history.

History speaks for itself on this position.

Except that the Gilded Age also saw the highest average standard of living at the time. Yours is an unprovable proposition, based on arguing against your own speculation.

 

[Galteeth]

I believe that this has become a naive view, given that the killing capacity of firearms has improved markedly since the late 18th century, and given that the military could stomp the populace of America with relative ease despite the prevalence of high-powered munitions in the public domain.

Furthermore, I believe the Second Amendment was clearly intended to support the use of well-regulated militias, not Joe Six-Pack having a Howitzer in his backyard. We have well-regulated militias - they're known as the National Guard. Does anyone seriously believe the Texas National Guard will ever fire a shot in anger at the United States Army, even if the United States becomes a tyranny?

But an armed populace could and has been a deterrent against extremely unpopular policies. Getting into hypothetical scenarios is a bit sketchy since the circumstances differ greatly, but asymetric warfare does not inevitably favor the more powerful occupying army.

 

[Galteeth]

Except that the Gilded Age also saw the highest average standard of living at the time. Yours is an unprovable proposition, based on arguing against your own speculation.

Yes, it's very hard to use historical examples since there are many factors besides size of government. Technology tends to grow over time which almost always leads to, in the measurable sense, higher standards of living. Arguments about government essentially hinge on ethical questions, since there is no way to isolate the variable making "scientific" discussions about government meaningless.

 

[BobG]

I believe that this has become a naive view, given that the killing capacity of firearms has improved markedly since the late 18th century, and given that the military could stomp the populace of America with relative ease despite the prevalence of high-powered munitions in the public domain.

Furthermore, I believe the Second Amendment was clearly intended to support the use of well-regulated militias, not Joe Six-Pack having a Howitzer in his backyard. We have well-regulated militias - they're known as the National Guard. Does anyone seriously believe the Texas National Guard will ever fire a shot in anger at the United States Army, even if the United States becomes a tyranny?

But an armed populace could and has been a deterrent against extremely unpopular policies. Getting into hypothetical scenarios is a bit sketchy since the circumstances differ greatly, but asymetric warfare does not inevitably favor the more powerful occupying army.

You don't need a hypothetical scenario. You have the civil war in which the state militias of the Southern states banded together to fight the state militias of the Northern states (plus a small federal army).

The civil war was precisely the scenario envisioned by the Second Amendment. Well, except for the ending.

 

[Evo]

You don't need a hypothetical scenario. You have the civil war in which the state militias of the Southern states banded together to fight the state militias of the Northern states (plus a small federal army).

The civil war was precisely the scenario envisioned by the Second Amendment. Well, except for the ending.

Realistically, our military has weapons and capabilities civilians simply cannot come near, unlike the abiltiy to roll a cannon away in the civil war.

 

[ApplePion]

The civil war was precisely the scenario envisioned by the Second Amendment. Well, except for the ending.

I've heard this quite a bit, always from people who seem like they would want it to be the case, but the exact opposite is true. The usual form is where the incorrect person says the Second Amendment is for citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government. Again, the opposite is true. The Second Amendment protects the government, tyrannical or not, from angry citizens.

Ther Second Amendment refers to the importance of militias to be armed. And note this from Article 1 Section 8: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" So the militias need to be armed to put down "Insurrections". This surely would include the South's insurrection in the Civil War. And it provides the government a means to protect itself from citizens who have concluded correctly or incorrectly that the government has become tyrannical.

The Constitution says what it says, and it would be wrong for someone to assume it says what he thinks it should say.

 

[BobG]

I've heard this quite a bit, always from people who seem like they would want it to be the case, but the exact opposite is true. The usual form is where the incorrect person says the Second Amendment is for citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government. Again, the opposite is true. The Second Amendment protects the government, tyrannical or not, from angry citizens.

Ther Second Amendment refers to the importance of militias to be armed. And note this from Article 1 Section 8: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" So the militias need to be armed to put down "Insurrections". This surely would include the South's insurrection in the Civil War. And it provides the government a means to protect itself from citizens who have concluded correctly or incorrectly that the government has become tyrannical.

The Constitution says what it says, and it would be wrong for someone to assume it says what he thinks it should say.

Which government is protected is the important part. It protects the state government from insurrections and it protects the state government from the federal government.

In other words, if a majority of a state's citizens concluded that the federal government had become tyrannical (or if the governor came to that decision and didn't care about reelection), the state's militia could help them out.

The governor of the state is still the commander in chief of that state's National Guard troops except when a National Guard unit has been mobilized and deployed in support of federal forces. And National Guard members swear an oath to both the US Constitution (as do all active duty troops) and an oath to their state constitution.

It is true that the National Guard couldn't stand up to federal military forces, but they do have more sophisticated weapons than private citizens could own.

But, today, it would almost be ludicrous to see National Guard troops as having the primary mission of protecting states from the federal government. The National Guard still protects the states (natural disaster response, riots, etc), but I'd find it hard to envision something like the civil war happening today.

 

[ApplePion]

Which government is protected is the important part. It protects the state government from insurrections and it protects the state government from the federal government.

How did you reach that conclusion?

The Constitution gives Congress, a branch of the Federal government, the power to call out the militias to protect the government from insurection. The quote from the Constitution I gave you was specifically about the powers of the Congress.

In other words, if a majority of a state's citizens concluded that the federal government had become tyrannical (or if the governor came to that decision and didn't care about reelection), the state's militia could help them out.

Again, I don't see upon what basis you are reaching your conclusion.

 

[BobG]

The Constitution says what the federal government can and cannot do. It doesn't say what the states can or cannot do internally because, at least at that time, the federal government had no power over the states (literally - the Articles of Confederation had virtually collapsed by time the states decided they needed a better plan). Article 4 does describe the relationship of the state with the federal government and other states. In other words, the Constitution only gives part of the picture, not the whole picture, when it comes to the states.

When it came to militias, Congress could:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

And the President:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

The militias (which evolved into today's National Guard) belonged to the state. The federal government had power over the militias only when they were supporting the federal government.

The Constitution doesn't actually describe how that transition takes place and that might be seen as a weakness seeing as how states were also supposed to donate troops under the Articles of Confederation - but didn't. When states requested help from the federal government, such as during the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts, the federal government under the Articles of Confederation couldn't come through for them because the US Army only had 625 troops and there was no power to force states to turn over control of their militias to the federal government.

There was nothing in the Constitution to directly rectify that problem except the good faith that states would be more willing to support the federal government if the federal government was better. The Constitution did allow the federal government to have its own army and navy, with the size unspecified (but hopefully larger than 625).

And the federal army did eventually gain true power over the mlitias, at least during war time, shortly after the start of the Civil War when the traditional relationship was blamed as contributing to several defeats to start the war off even though, per the Constitution, they should have had that power right off the bat once they joined whatever military campaign the federal government was fighting (never mind that the Confederates had an even less centralized military and their lack of centralization persisted throughout the war). It took a while for those two clauses in the Constitution to actually mean something.

Trivia: The founding of the National Guard dates back to Dec 13, 1636 - 140 years before the Revolutionary War.

 

[ApplePion]

BobG, I really don't understand your point. The Constitution said that an important reason for the right to bear arms is to arm militias, and it also says that one of the powers of the Congress is to call out the militia to put down "Insurrections". So it seems to me undeniable that the Second Amendment was there to prevent rebellions against the federal governmement such as the Civil War, etc...not to facilitate those things.

 

[mheslep]

ApplePion - You are drawing an unsupportable connection between the 2nd amendment and the Constitution's Article 1 militia reference; the connection does not exist. Your argument is akin to correctly pointing out that the Constitution calls for a federally supported postal service, and correctly pointing out that the Constitution grants power for federally supported armed forces, therefore (incorrectly) assuming the Constitution demands the postal service should be run by the armed forces.

 

[BobG]

Plus, it's debatable whether or not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to preserve the states' ability to have their own militia.

The wording of the 2nd Amendment is very vague - intentionally so.

There were many concerned with the states having their own militia and a provision in the Bill of Rights preventing the federal government from disbanding them. There were also many that believed in the individuals' right to own firearms and didn't want any government, whether federal or state, infringing those rights. Add to this that many states couldn't actually afford to arm an army and required militia members to bring their own guns and ammunition.

The vague wording aided passage in that all camps could see what they wanted to see in the Amendment by putting emphasis on different parts of the amendment.

Personally, I do think the state militia part was the most important part, as the revolutionaries had prior experiences with the British attempting to seize the heavy cannons of state militias (that's what Paul Revere's ride was about).

But the Bill of Rights was primarily intended to provide protection from the federal government. An Amendment intended to put down something like the Civil War would have been out of place there.

 

[ApplePion]

ApplePion - You are drawing an unsupportable connection between the 2nd amendment and the Constitution's Article 1 militia reference; the connection does not exist. Your argument is akin to correctly pointing out that the Constitution calls for a federally supported postal service, and correctly pointing out that the Constitution grants power for federally supported armed forces, therefore (incorrectly) assuming the Constitution demands the postal service should be run by the armed forces.

Both Article 1 and the Second Amendment refer to the same thing--militias. You are claiming that equating militias to militias is like equating the Post Office to the Armed Forces.

Plus, it's debatable whether or not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to preserve the states' ability to have their own militia. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is very vague - intentionally so.

I somewhat agree with you on that, but it is somewhat irrelevant--Article 1 clearly gave the federal government power yo put down "Insurrection"

No matter how you cut it, the Constitution did not support the South suceding or anyone otherthrowing the government.

But the Bill of Rights was primarily intended to provide protection from the federal government. An Amendment intended to put down something like the Civil War would have been out of place there.

You might think it would be out of place, but it is in there!

An Amendment intended to put down something like the Civil War would have been out of place there.

The part of the Constitution protecting the Federal Government from armed "Insurrection" was no amendment. It was part of the full intent of the Founders.

While people now tink of the Bill of Rights as being a key part of the Constitution, they were not even originally intended to be in there --they were put in later to amend the Constitution to gather political support from some dissenters.

 

[Char. Limit]

Pro-tip: Clever use of Quote tags can make it so you don't need to clutter up a thread with four posts in a row. I would suggest multi-quote, but it seems like you made four posts quoting different parts of the same post.

 

[mheslep]

Both Article 1 and the Second Amendment refer to the same thing--militias. You are claiming that equating militias to militias is like equating the Post Office to the Armed Forces...

The issue at hand is use and control of militias. A1 provides for nationalizing the militias for suppression insurrection. You insist on taking this to mean the only purpose of militias is to await nationalization by the federal government, as if the federal government's power to tax meant the only purpose of citizens was to pay taxes (and serve in nationalized militias).

 

[mheslep]

..

While people now tink of the Bill of Rights as being a key part of the Constitution, they were not even originally intended to be in there --they were put in later to amend the Constitution to gather political support from some dissenters.

Otherwise there would be no US or Constitution.