U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 07-28-2011, 11:34 PM
 
25 posts, read 18,469 times
Reputation: 15

Advertisements

Ron Paul position is that individual rights come first, then states rights, and last of all would be those allowed to the federal government by the people thru the state.
His position on marriage is that the government has no business or authority to regulate such matter's.
That would include state government. Of course unless the people so desire such regulation by the state.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-28-2011, 11:44 PM
 
Location: SS Slopes
251 posts, read 197,833 times
Reputation: 117
Wow this thread really exploded. Most of these definitions are ambiguous and can mean whatever the user wants them to mean. Since Hayek was mentioned, might as well mention Rothbard. Even egaltarians and altruists try to assume the "libertarian" label now so it's necessary to further distinguish. Ron Paul is essentially an anarcho-capitalist in his philosophy on economics and society in general. You won't catch him using that phrase because statists are scared to death of the A-word (which is also laughably ambiguous) and will go out of their way to stigmatize it.

He'll say "Constitutionalist" because for the most part the Constitution is a very limiting document, and that gets him most of the way there. But he openly praises Austrian economic theory and was a good friend and confidant of Murray Rothbard, who does take it all the way, past Article I Section 8, and presents very comprehensive intellectual arguments as to why. Which of course is not taught in schools because it files directly in the face of Keynes and FDR and everything the government has done the past century. But like all theory, what is considered correct and good in one century gets usurped in another when its shortcomings are realized, and does not go quietly.

Keynes just came up with a possible economic excuse for the powers that be to do what they wanted to do anyway. And it brought great prosperity, for a while. But that's the way all bubbles work. The time for it to pop is nigh. It won't be August 2nd (the central planners WISH they had that kind of control over the market and the banks) but it is imminent. The people voting "no" to the debt ceiling increase whatsoever realize this and just want to get it over with as quickly as possible, get those bad assets off the taxpayers' backs, let banks and businesses that should have gone under a long time ago go under, and start working toward economic prosperity again. They are sick of delaying the inevitable. So am I.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2011, 06:31 AM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,901,765 times
Reputation: 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike02 View Post
They believe in a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
Not really, because the Constitution clearly gives Congress broad regulatory powers with respect to any issues involving interstate commerce, and also a general power to tax and spend for the general welfare of the United States. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would acknowledge this, but not liking what that implies, these so-called Constitutionalists ignore the plain language and simply assert their own preferences instead, sometimes using the game of hunting through the texts of various framers until they find something to cherry-pick that kinda sorta supports what they want to believe, and ignoring all the other available evidence. As you handily demonstrated.

Quote:
Prior to the 20th century, we leaned towards the free market. Since then, we have a form of "state capitalism" or "crony capitalism" or corporatism (essentially all similar).
As an aside, this is nonsense. Government and commercial interests have always been intertwined in the United States, and before that the colonies. Heck, the original Constitution was designed in part to ensure that wealth property owners would have a dominant role in governance. The real story is that a series of democratizing reforms and expansions of the right to vote have actually given more and more people an opportunity to counterbalance the influence of the wealthy.

Unfortunately, a significant number of such people are willing to lend their votes to wealthy property interests anyway. So, for example, some such interests may want to be able to pollute common resources without interference from the government, and through packaging their agenda in libertarian terms, they may get voters to support their captive politicians.

Last edited by BrianTH; 07-29-2011 at 06:55 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2011, 06:36 AM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,901,765 times
Reputation: 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian View Post
Similar in the sense you mean, but different in that the Westminster model functions reasonably well, while the antediluvian Madisonian artifact clearly does not, as is now being demonstrated once again.
Correct. For example, the Conservatives are clearly responsible for the results of their policies, which provides an opportunity for accountability. In contrast, in our system you can have one party deliberately hampering the economic recovery, and yet people will still blame both parties, and maybe particularly blame the President. That lack of clear accountability in theory can lead to some very bad incentives, and it appears that problem is no longer theoretical.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2011, 06:46 AM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,901,765 times
Reputation: 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by soniqV View Post
You won't catch him using that phrase because statists are scared to death of the A-word (which is also laughably ambiguous) and will go out of their way to stigmatize it.
I don't think it needs to be "stigmatized". A basic understanding of human history will lead one to conclude that "anarchies" of all sorts are fleeting, and that the inevitable result will be the rise of some new form of coercive governance, usually by warlords. Therefore, whether they understand this themselves or not, anarchocapitalists are de facto arguing for manorialism. And that is a tough sell, since most people rightly prefer being citizens in a republic to being serfs in a manorial system.

Quote:
Which of course is not taught in schools because it files directly in the face of Keynes and FDR and everything the government has done the past century.
You can find people discussing Austrian economics in schools. What you will also find is people pointing out that some of the key premises of Austrian economics have been disproven empirically, and in fact are being disproven yet again in this current crisis. This is an inconvenience for those who have elevated Austrian economics to a quasi-religious worldview, although their fallback position is to claim that no matter what the data keeps saying today, eventually they will be proven right (sort of like the prophets who keep predicting the end of the world, then moving the date whenever it arrives).

Quote:
The people voting "no" to the debt ceiling increase whatsoever realize this . . .
Nah. Most of them haven't gotten any farther than: "if Obama is for it, I'm against it!"
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2011, 07:10 AM
 
Location: ɥbɹnqsʇʇıd
4,481 posts, read 3,234,581 times
Reputation: 3284
Today I learned that many that people on these forums have vastly different interpretations of political views and that technically everyone is both right and wrong in their interpretation.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2011, 10:54 AM
 
268 posts, read 188,843 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Not really, because the Constitution clearly gives Congress broad regulatory powers with respect to any issues involving interstate commerce, and also a general power to tax and spend for the general welfare of the United States. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would acknowledge this, but not liking what that implies, these so-called Constitutionalists ignore the plain language and simply assert their own preferences instead, sometimes using the game of hunting through the texts of various framers until they find something to cherry-pick that kinda sorta supports what they want to believe, and ignoring all the other available evidence. As you handily demonstrated.



As an aside, this is nonsense. Government and commercial interests have always been intertwined in the United States, and before that the colonies. Heck, the original Constitution was designed in part to ensure that wealth property owners would have a dominant role in governance. The real story is that a series of democratizing reforms and expansions of the right to vote have actually given more and more people an opportunity to counterbalance the influence of the wealthy.

Unfortunately, a significant number of such people are willing to lend their votes to wealthy property interests anyway. So, for example, some such interests may want to be able to pollute common resources without interference from the government, and through packaging their agenda in libertarian terms, they may get voters to support their captive politicians.
If you look into the Federalist papers, specifically by James Madison prior to the 1787 signing, he described particularly the general welfare clause as dependent to the other enumerated powers. Why would he list specific powers if Congress can have broad regulatory powers and tax and spend on anything they seem fit to the "general welfare?" Thus, general welfare is not a specific power to tax. However, after the signing of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton became effective at "loosening up" the strict meaning of the general welfare clause. So today, the Hamiltonian view is predominant over that of James Madison. The same can be said about the interstate commerce clause, which was designed to ensure the flow of goods between states (e.g. one state can't impose a tariff on goods from another). But, today, the fed. gov't will regulate ANYTHING that has to do with interstate commerce. Practically, anything that involves "interstate."

Back in college, we were required to read excerpts from a book that described our Constitution as being designed for "economic purposes" or protecting wealthy interests. Ironically, the author of this book was a PROGRESSIVE and was written in the early 20th century. Maybe you read the same book? And, today's progressives/liberals cherry-pick as well. They are currently cherry-picking the 14th Amendment on this debt-ceiling crisis.

I always argued that while both the Democrats and Republicans both cherry-pick the Constitution, I believe Libertarians remain consistent on their small limited government message. You are either for big government or not. You can't just choose one part of the Constitution to have limited government and then loosely interpret another part in order to expand government. Both parties do that ALL THE TIME. I'm not saying all Libertarians are consistent on their message, but they are very much so compared to the Democrats and Republicans. And, I'm not saying the Libertarian message is right or wrong, but rather "consistent."

I never said the U.S. had a free market economy during the 18th and 19th centuries. I said that we "leaned" more in that direction than we do today.

Last edited by mike02; 07-29-2011 at 11:05 AM.. Reason: clarification
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2011, 11:30 AM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,901,765 times
Reputation: 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike02 View Post
If you look into the Federalist papers, specifically by James Madison prior to the 1787 signing, he described particularly the general welfare clause as dependent to the other enumerated powers.
There were many different opinions on the meaning of the tax and spend clause at the time, which is why everyone can just cherry-pick the source they prefer. But that is why we have a written Constitution and written laws: the text is what should be controlling, not various private interpretations of that text.

Quote:
Why would he list specific powers if Congress can have broad regulatory powers and tax and spend on anything they seem fit to the "general welfare?"
There is lots of redundancy built into the Constitution so this is not necessarily a problem. But it should be noted that spending is itself a limited category of legislative action, and most if not all of the enumerated powers authorize more than just spending but also other sorts of legislation.

Quote:
The same can be said about the interstate commerce clause, which was designed to ensure the flow of goods between states (e.g. one state can impose a tariff on goods from another).
Again, there were many different contemporary views on what that clause meant. Looking at the actual text, a strict interpretation of the text would note it is not limited to prohibiting state tariffs or other state-imposed restrictions on commerce, but rather that it speaks broadly of regulation. But again, people who do not like to strictly interpret the Constitution often introduce limitations not actually present in the text.

Quote:
Back in college, we were required to read excerpts from a book that described our Constitution as being designed for "economic purposes" or protecting wealthy interests. Ironically, the author of this book was a PROGRESSIVE and was written in the early 20th century. Maybe you read the same book?
I've read a lot on the Constitution. I may or may not have read that particular book.

Quote:
And, today's progressives/liberals cherry-pick as well. They are currently cherry-picking the 14th Amendment on this debt-ceiling crisis.
Well, let's look at what it says:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

A pretty odd clause to be sure--"shall not be questioned" is not a perfectly clear instruction. But it does seem to suggest it would be unconstitutional for a relevant federal officer to cause a default on a U.S. public debt. If that instruction conflicted with a law of Congress, it would seem the officer would have to comply with this constitutional instruction not to default, as opposed to the law.

Quote:
I always argued that while both the Democrats and Republicans both cherry-pick the Constitution, I believe Libertarians remain consistent on their small limited government message.
Right, they remain on message regardless of what the Constitution actually says. That may make them ideologically pure in their own eyes, but it means they are anything but Constitutionalists. Constitutionalists would accept what the Constitution actually says, whether or not it supported their preferred ideological message.

Quote:
You are either for big government or not.
That, of course, is a silly statement. You can be for only as much government as specific issues warrant, which may be anything from a lot of government to no government at all depending on the specific issue. You might also think there are a wide variety of ways in which government can be involved in an issue, and thus think that the "size" of government is not anything close to a comprehensive measure of government involvement.

And such a person may have no general answer to whether government should be "big or not", since their answer would have to be "it depends". Indeed, they might even think that was a childish question to begin with.

Quote:
And, I'm not saying the Libertarian message is right or wrong, but rather "consistent."
As Emerson noted, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Quote:
I never said the U.S. had a free market economy during the 18th and 19th centuries. I said that we "leaned" more in that direction than we do today.
Which, again, is nonsense. In fact we actually had slavery for most of that period, which is about as opposite of a free market exchange as you can get.

What is true is that in its early history, the United States had an economy more dominated by agriculture. The industrialization of the U.S. economy brought about many changes, including within its governments. But the prior more agriculturally-based economy was not somehow more "free market": governments were heavily involved, but in different ways.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2011, 11:39 AM
 
4,690 posts, read 2,026,928 times
Reputation: 1572
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike02 View Post
Back in college, we were required to read excerpts from a book that described our Constitution as being designed for "economic purposes" or protecting wealthy interests. Ironically, the author of this book was a PROGRESSIVE and was written in the early 20th century.
Charles Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913)?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2011, 11:47 AM
 
4,690 posts, read 2,026,928 times
Reputation: 1572
There's a kind of idiocy in picking over words and phrases, like Talmudic scholars, of a document which was composed in the reign of Louis XVI and has about as much relevance to the contemporary world as he does. It is a mummified, lifeless, unworkable relic of the Ancien Regime, and continuing to treat it as a sacred text is as ridiculous as a tribe of grass-skirted savages worshiping their wood-and-bone totem. If there's anything good about this latest mechanical failure, it's that the inadequacies of the ancient mess will be clearly exposed. The United States has had two constitutions - the third time is the charm.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top