Does libertarianism just shift tyranny from the government to individuals?

[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.