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

[thetaobums]

Ron Paul may very well be the most honest Congressman, but are any of his ideas really practical in increasing freedom? I agree with him that we don't need more government, but I don't think we need less either; we need more direct and accountable government.

Please correct me if you think I am wrong, but from the debates and from his books that I've read, these are part of his political philosophy:

He thinks any kind of "arms" control is unconstitutional (i.e. including bazookas, tanks, and possibly WMDs), that people who CAN afford health insurance yet have life-threatening preexisting conditions and are denied access should either find a charitable organization or drop dead, that a 19th century style gold reserve would actually increase consumer confidence, that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional despite being established law in later Supreme Court cases, that tort reform can solve global warming/pollution, and on and on.

Just think about the pollution example. If a multibillion dollar corporation pollutes a river and affects a group of Average Joe's livelihood as fishermen downstream, what are the chances of them winning a court case? Against the corporation's team of seasoned lawyers who cite contradictory science, blame other corporations, etc? Tort reform already exists and is very ineffective; given his disdain for international law, suing Japan for tsunami debris would be a laughing matter. What else but the government can rein in such a corporation?

 

[lisab]

Here's an example of the kind of "fix" some Libertarians want: In the state I live (Washington), when the government was set up there was a lot of concern about too much power concentrated at the top of state government. They were worried that top-heavy government would lead to tyranny and corruption.

So the power was shifted down, with the counties and cities having more strength than in most states.

Now we have tyranny and corruption at every level - not everywhere, but spotty here and there. This makes it nearly impossible to get rid of.

Say what you will about governments that concentrate power in one place, but at least with that structure, you know where the rot is.

 

[Skrew]

"Freedom" is a bit of an arbitrary term because what one person defines as "freedom" can infringe on another person. My "freedom" to control my property verse your "freedom" to enter onto it. I value what's written on the constution, others don't. I also wouldn't consider the USSC to be the final say on what's consitutional or not, they make political decisions and are not really interested in what the founders wanted(nor is anyone else aside from a very few people - the founders views would not match up with any party even close to mainstream) so much as pushing their own political agenda.

Libertarianism in its most complete form(open borders, no police, no FDA, no Enviromental laws, personal ownership of Nuclear Devices) is delusional but it's possible to remove what I consider excessive government while strenghtening the areas I feel government should be used for.

 

[ApplePion]

"Ron Paul may very well be the most honest Congressman"

Ron Paul claims that if you do not support him you are against the Constitution.

Ron Paul kept insisting that he was way ahead of Romney in terms of delegates, and thus would win the nomination.

Ron Paul wrote extreme racist things in his newsletter, then later denied he wrote it, and said he did not know who was writing his newsletter.

 

[chiro]

One of the amazing things about items in the US constitution is the 2nd amendment and the reason it is so powerful is that it's based on the idea of trying remove a monopoly of force from a government, as this was understood by the people that revolted against a corrupt system.

The idea of removing any centralized system for power is one of the most powerful ideas for governance IMO because in terms of tyranny, you need some kind of centralized framework or at least a big majority to pull it off.

When you have a situation where no centralization to the point of becoming a systemic risk (this is the term in finance) is possible, it means that tyranny is largely averted because the only way tyranny can occur even potentially is when the situation for power becomes large enough in that its potential for execution in all its levels in terms of tyranny becomes realized.

The 2nd amendment dealt with the monopoly on force very well and I imagine there are many other opportunities to deal with similar issues with regard to tyranny in a similar fashion.

 

[Dale]

I am not clear if your OP is very relevant to the title of the thread, but the answer to the title is "no". A system where individual tyrants are permitted is called anarchy, not libertarianism.

A libertarian philosophy does not espouse no government, nor even a weak government, but rather a government with a very well defined role. Specifically, a libertarian government protects its citizens from force or fraud by other nations and other individuals, but otherwise does not interfere.

Just think about the pollution example. If a multibillion dollar corporation pollutes a river and affects a group of Average Joe's livelihood as fishermen downstream, what are the chances of them winning a court case?

The EPA, would have place in a libertarian government. After all, you are just as dead if you are shot by a mugger or poisoned by a corporation. An ideal libertarian government must be strong enough to be able to redress such things and dismantle such corporations.

 

[Darth Frodo]

This may be a bit off topic but it does apply to Ron Paul and other politicians.

Why is it that The Constitution is held in such high regard.

I mean the Founding Fathers had excellent ideals but that was relative to them. How could they have predicted societies ways and behaviors 200 years into the future.

Can people not see that sometimes change needs to happen. I hate it when in the debates Ron Paul's only answer to anything is "It's in the Constitution".

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Founding Fathers write "A more perfect union" and not The Perfect Union.

It perplexes me for a nation to assume that a 200 year old document is to be considered infallible.

Here in Ireland, later this year a Constitutional Congress is being called to discuss changes to the document which isn't even 100 years old. Changes such as creating a more secular society and same sex marriage are all being discussed.

Do events like these happen in the US?

 

[Evo]

This may be a bit off topic but it does apply to Ron Paul and other politicians.

Why is it that The Constitution is held in such high regard.

I mean the Founding Fathers had excellent ideals but that was relative to them. How could they have predicted societies ways and behaviors 200 years into the future.

Can people not see that sometimes change needs to happen. I hate it when in the debates Ron Paul's only answer to anything is "It's in the Constitution".

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Founding Fathers write "A more perfect union" and not The Perfect Union.

It perplexes me for a nation to assume that a 200 year old document is to be considered infallible.

Here in Ireland, later this year a Constitutional Congress is being called to discuss changes to the document which isn't even 100 years old. Changes such as creating a more secular society and same sex marriage are all being discussed.

Do events like these happen in the US?

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.

 

[Skrew]

Any attempts to change the constution should and will be met with stiff opposition. If a process to change it were ever started, it would be deadlocked and likely lead to a civil war or separation of the country considering the fundementally different views in different areas of the US.

 

[Dowland]

Why is it that The Constitution is held in such high regard.

Because it's largely based on libertarian principles. The principles of classical liberalism, that goes back to John Locke and more or less all the way back to the middle ages holds just as true today, according to them. The thing is, the essence of libertarianism is just the individual rights to life, liberty and property. Philosophically, those rights are just as appliable today as 3000 years ago.´

So my (with emphasis on *my*, this is how I see it) answer to you would be: the philosophical character of libertarianism, with it's timeless appliable moral principles.

 

[russ_watters]

Why is it that The Constitution is held in such high regard.

We think it is the most important factor enabling the US to go from nothing to being the world's only superpower in less than 200 years.

I mean the Founding Fathers had excellent ideals but that was relative to them. How could they have predicted societies ways and behaviors 200 years into the future...

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Founding Fathers write "A more perfect union" and not The Perfect Union.

It perplexes me for a nation to assume that a 200 year old document is to be considered infallible.

I don't know anyone who considers it infallible. In particular, the ability to change it is built-in and that's considered to be one of the key elements of it. It has been a while since there have been any major changes, but there were some pretty big flaws in the original constitution that were fixed with amendments.

Here in Ireland, later this year a Constitutional Congress is being called to discuss changes to the document which isn't even 100 years old. Changes such as creating a more secular society and same sex marriage are all being discussed.

Do events like these happen in the US?

No they don't, but I'd definitely be in favor of them. In the US, though, we've been able to make major changes without Constitutional amendments, which I consider to be a problem.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

 

[QuantumPion]

This may be a bit off topic but it does apply to Ron Paul and other politicians.

Why is it that The Constitution is held in such high regard.

It was the first time in human history where people were legally guaranteed individual freedom, right of property, and equality before the law. Before the U.S. constitution, people were never more than subjects to a higher authority and any privileges they may have enjoyed were always at the pleasure of that authority.

 

[QuantumPion]

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.

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.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

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.

Can you expand on this? I am interested in what changes you want to see.

 

[Evo]

Can you expand on this? I am interested in what changes you want to see.

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.

 

[Skrew]

In the US, though, we've been able to make major changes without Constitutional amendments, which I consider to be a problem.

A result of the political nature of the USSC. When ever a case comes the judges know what they are going to vote for long before deliberation even starts. The time spent during the case is for them to find supporting evidence for their posistion for their write up.

As an example, 4 of the USSC justices felt handgun ownership wasn't something the founders intended protected by the 2nd, it's laughable how absurd that is.

 

[Char. Limit]

As an example, 4 of the USSC justices felt handgun ownership wasn't something the founders intended protected by the 2nd, it's laughable how absurd that is.

Why is that absurd? Handguns didn't even EXIST at the time, it's actually absurd to assume they COULD have intended their use be protected.

 

[Skrew]

Why is that absurd? Handguns didn't even EXIST at the time, it's actually absurd to assume they COULD have intended their use be protected.

Handguns did exist at that time but let's disregard that truth and actually look at what the founders did to get a better perspective on their own ideologies.

They rebelled against a country using arms that they owned including cannons, something they wouldn't have been able to do without them. They went to war, killed british soliders and declared independence. They specifically designed their new nation to allow its population to do that exact same thing in the future should the need arise. They also carried their personal arms every where they went. They were champions of personal liberty and liberty includes the ownership of firearms and the ability to protect ones self and property.

Now do you honestly believe that the founders would have even tolerated the idea of banning handguns? It's laughable. If anything the founders would be planning another revolution considering the current state of the US.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

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.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do think Article II (re the Presidency) of the body of the US Constitution needs work. The main problem is the Electoral College which allows a president to be elected with less than a majority of the popular vote. Clinton only won 43% of the popular vote in 1992. The remaining votes were divided among two other candidates. However it's theoretically possible for the winning candidate to get as little as about 26% of the popular vote while the losing candidate gets 74%. This is the mathematical limit and is virtually impossible, but a 40-60 ratio is not all that unlikely.

In addition, if no one gets a majority of the electoral votes, the newly elected House of Representatives chooses the president based, not on a majority of the members, but on a majority of states, each voting as a block and each state having one vote, based on a polling of the state's delegation. This only makes it all the easier to elect a president with less popular votes than the other candidate(s). Presently, 13 states have about half the US population.

 

[russ_watters]

A result of the political nature of the USSC. When ever a case comes the judges know what they are going to vote for long before deliberation even starts. The time spent during the case is for them to find supporting evidence for their posistion for their write up.

As an example, 4 of the USSC justices felt handgun ownership wasn't something the founders intended protected by the 2nd, it's laughable how absurd that is.

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:

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.

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.

 

[mheslep]

I suspect a serious attempt to scrap and redo the US Constitution from scratch would lead to the dissolution of these United States.

 

[Windowmaker]

I think we should leave it as it is. It has a built in updating mechanism in it. It's a flawless document with respect to the fact that it can evolve with society. Scrapping would result in rebellion. I don't know what the issue on the 2nd amendment is.

 

[xdrgnh]

If we can defy the supreme law of the land then effectively government can do anything blatantly. That is why we must never change our constitution. The 2nd amendment isn't vague given it's context in the whole constitution. We have the right to bear arms to protect our selves from government tyranny. That means the mobilized people in theory should be stronger then the military of the United States.

 

[BareFootKing]

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.

 

[BobG]

It was the first time in human history where people were legally guaranteed individual freedom, right of property, and equality before the law. Before the U.S. constitution, people were never more than subjects to a higher authority and any privileges they may have enjoyed were always at the pleasure of that authority.

Didn't the Magna Carta precede the US Constitution by over 400 years? (And, actually, the Magna Carta wasn't the first time in history, just the most famous and more comprehensive than its predecessors.)

The US Constitution was established more as a balance between the need for small nation-states (the original 13 colonies) to band together for mutual protection/trade and the need to maintain their own identities as nation-states. The latter obviously declined over time - starting from the time our union was so weak the British invaded our capitol during the War of 1812 and culminating in the Civil War, which pretty much permanently established the states as members of an independent country instead of the country as a union of truly independent states.

The individual rights were a carry-over from a long tradition, even if individual rights were further strengthened (and strengthened even further with the 14th Amendment, which allowed the federal government to enforce those rights even at the state level).

The nature of the country has constantly changed and changes in the interpretation of the Constitution have reflected that...

...while reverence for the printed word has created resistance to changing interpretations...

... even when the vagueness of an amendment was purposely written in, as it was the only way to get enough support to approve the amendment. The development and approval for the Second Amendment is kind of interesting - there would have been no consensus on whether it applied solely to state militias or to individuals even at the time it was approved. Of course, the fact that most states required citizens to show up for militia duty with their own weapons and ammunition made the distinction seem kind of trivial. Possesion of personal firearms was a requirement to even have a militia.

 

[Galteeth]

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.

I think these ideas make some sense, although I'm the first to admit that local governments can be tyrannical, corrupt, and efficiently resistant to change.

I am disturbed by how many people fail to see the value of the Constitution. One think I think is that people are so accustomed to having these safeguards in place that they don't appreciate their value. While the constitution gets violated all the time, without its safeguards the country would quickly turn into a much worse place.

 

[Galteeth]

Why is that absurd? Handguns didn't even EXIST at the time, it's actually absurd to assume they COULD have intended their use be protected.

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.

 

[BobG]

I am disturbed by how many people fail to see the value of the Constitution. One think I think is that people are so accustomed to having these safeguards in place that they don't appreciate their value. While the constitution gets violated all the time, without its safeguards the country would quickly turn into a much worse place.

Which parts of the Constitution?

As a person that's lived in four different states with about 25% of my life in each, I have to admit the idea of states' rights doesn't seem quite so important to me as it might to someone that's lived in the same state their entire lives.

 

[mheslep]

Art 1, Sec 1 for a start:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Example:

The DREAM Act ...an American legislative proposal ... would provide conditional permanent residency to certain illegal individuals of good moral character who graduate from U.S. high schools, arrived in the United States as minors, ...

...the DREAM Act has proven impossible to get past the Senate. ... its fate perished with a defense authorization bill; and the second, during the lame-duck period, it fell five votes short of passing a needed filibuster-proof hurdle. The final Senate vote, 55-41, ...

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

...Effective immediately, young people who were brought to the US through no fault of their own as children and who meet certain criteria will be eligible to receive deferred action for a period of 2 years and that period will be subject to renewal, ...

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

 

[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.