Does libertarianism just shift tyranny from the government to individuals?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of libertarianism, particularly in relation to the potential for individual tyranny as opposed to government tyranny. Participants explore various aspects of libertarian philosophy, including its practical applications, the role of government, and interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the practicality of Ron Paul's ideas for increasing freedom, suggesting that a more accountable government is necessary.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for tyranny at local levels when power is decentralized, as seen in Washington state.
  • Participants discuss the subjective nature of "freedom," noting that one person's freedom can infringe on another's rights, leading to a complex relationship between property rights and personal liberties.
  • Critiques of Ron Paul's views include accusations of inconsistency and extremism, particularly regarding his interpretation of the Constitution and historical context.
  • Some argue that the Second Amendment's intent was to prevent a monopoly of force by the government, suggesting that a decentralized power structure could mitigate tyranny.
  • A distinction is made between libertarianism and anarchy, with some asserting that libertarianism does not advocate for the absence of government but rather a government with a specific, limited role.
  • Participants question the reverence for the Constitution, arguing that it may not adequately address modern societal needs and that change is necessary.
  • There is a suggestion that attempts to amend the Constitution would face significant opposition and potential deadlock.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on libertarianism, with no consensus on its implications or effectiveness. Disagreements persist regarding the role of government, the interpretation of the Constitution, and the potential for individual tyranny.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on specific interpretations of the Constitution and historical context, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion reflects a variety of assumptions about governance, individual rights, and societal change.

  • #91
ApplePion said:
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).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
ApplePion said:
..

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.