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

[CAC1001]

I believe that the constitution is horribly outdated and needs to be scrapped and we need to start over. Sure there have been many cumbersome attempts to fix it, but we really need to start over. IMO. It just doesn't reflect modern society, even with all of the ammendments.

The problem though is that a brand-new Constitution would be out-dated within about twenty to thirty years. Compare 1982 to 2012 for example. If we re-wrote the Constitution in 1982, it probably would be horribly out-dated by now in quite a few ways. The Constitution has sustained our government for all this time because it is a relatively short, brief document that is flexible and can be modified as time goes on.

I'm just thinking back on all the threads we've had where everyone had a different interpretation of the law based on confusion due to numerous ammendments. I think it's time to clean up. I haven't developed "the world according to Evo" yet.

A brand-new Constitution would probably have similar aspects that are murky-seeming as well.

 

[CAC1001]

I agree. The founding fathers wrote the constitution to protect the people from an all-powerful government from getting out of control, but clearly that has happened. The problem is, as that famous quote goes, "The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." Learning the lessons of how the federal government got so large and corrupt over time, we could fix the constitution to prevent that from happening again. But it would probably require either a revolution or a complete and total breakdown of government in order to implement such changes.

Well one event that really caused the federal government to grow in size was FDR's New Deal during the Great Depression (and his threatening to stack the Court which got the court to go along with his policies). That said though, the federal government isn't necessarilly that large when you look at the major aspects of it that break the budget: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense spending. The federal government, with all the other stuff it has, would consume a small fraction of the money it currently does if not for those four things.

I use the 2nd Amendment as an example, but for a different reason: it is poorly worded and vague, plus technology has taken weapons quite a long way since then. However: Certainly there are a number of things that should be cleaned-up and updated. The Second Amendment among them. I would prefer just fixing the problem areas, though. I don't see a need to scrap the whole thing and start over.

Not an expert on it, but the modern definition for the word "arms" in the Second Amendment, from my understanding of it, is "weapons owned by ordinary law-abiding citizens that they would be expected to muster to militia conscription with." The Second Amendment thus does not give one a right to keep a battle tank in their garage for example (or at least not one with a functional gun).

 

[Skrew]

I do think the libertarianism that Ron Paul espouses would do just that. His beliefs I think assume that there are a great number of people who are willing to help other people without making discrimination based on sex,race,etc.

If the majority of the power was shifted down there would be divisions among the different parts of the United States that are greater than they are now. If the importance of the national government and cooperation across borders diminish, those in rural (ethnically uniform) communities will be a lot more out of touch with those in urban(ethnically diverse) communities. The United States would consist of divided states. I think in today's world it is important to have a centralized transparent and efficient government. Maybe when we were just the 13 colonies and the world was not as interconnected as it is now Ron Paul's beliefs would have been more applicable.

I don't believe it's the federal governments place to tell me what to believe or who I should be around. Large social agendas intended to make everyone be "united" was never something the founders would have wanted.

I am a Ron Paul supporter, but I don't totally agree with the ideology. As far as the power shifted down thing, the theory goes that A) Governments on the local level are more inclined to be serving the interests of their specific population, and can be changed more easily B) One size fits all Federal regulations are short-sighted and C( People can move and to an area that is more in line with their way of life.

Yes state specific legislation allows for more choice, I don't believe the commerce clause should exist in its current form.

Art 1, Sec 1 for a start:


Example:



Which per the language I ready in A1.S1 should be the end of the story. But no:


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...portations-for-young-illegal-immigrants-video

That's just one example, another is Obama deciding to essentially halt immigration enforcement.

 

[pgardn]

The 2nd should allow everyone the right to use a musket that is horribly inaccurate. Gotta carry around that black powder and packing and such.

At the next NRA meeting in my area I will propose that citizens have the right to defend themselves with small nuclear devices with a delivery system of <5 miles.

I feel wonderfully lucky to be born in the U.S. But honest to God... the gun shows I have seen it Texas... its like there are a bunch of paranoid old white men that think zombies are ready to eat their faces.

I think the CIA, Armed forces, FBI, and local police should all be privatized.
Sounds good... Privatization and the free market cure all ills in society; According to my neighbors. For less government, take a trip to Somalia. Its a hot vacation spot.

 

[CAC1001]

For less government, take a trip to Somalia. Its a hot vacation spot.

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]

"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.

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]

... 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.

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

"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,

Clearly, that's a truism.

and you cvonstrue the situation as somehow being that the Constitution was for the thing it CHANGED.

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]

Does libertarianism just shift tyranny from the government to individuals?

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 referring 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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

Not sure if there is an easy answer but if you'll indulge me: What would the government you would prefer to have look like?

I hear the criticism of the Constitution being old/outdated a lot, but the Constitution is primarily an organizational/structural document and so I don't see much in it that has an "age". One obvious exception would be the 2nd Amendment, though.

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]

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?

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]

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

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]

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:)

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.