Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Freedom123: In my opinion, this problem would be resolved permanently with an Equal Rights Amendment that covers race and sex. At that point, the libertarians and Constitutionalists would have no argument since non-discrimination is encoded in the Constitution.
Libertarianism isn't rooted in Constitutionalism, silly. Nor is it ever, under any circumstances, compatible with legal positivism as you implied in your solution.
Any legal [statutory, common law, statutory, or regulatory] codification which violates the libertarian premise is prima facie illegitimate.
Even for sake of arguendo if the right to free association became morally illegitimate, as you so desperately want to make it illegal (per your Constitutional amendment suggestion), and even if it was thus compatible with libertarian ethics (an absurdity for multiple reasons to be addressed separately), the moral bindingness of it as absolutely nothing to do with your Constitutional amendment. The moral bindingness comes from the ethical framework itself, not because somebody wrote something on a piece of paper and then voila... somehow you magically think libertarians should think that writing it down is a morally significant act in itself.
Hence, such an inclusion into the Constitution would not resolve the matter, since the Constitution has zero bearing on libertarianism in its entirety. Libertarianism is not legal positivism, nor is virtually any other ethical system ever devised by man a form of legal positivism. Legal positivism is a [bizarre and extremely pernicious] philisophical construct unto itself... and at least in the case of libertarianism, is absolutely incompatible.
Well, that's part of the problem, isn't it, that Libertarians have so often been "seduced" by the "anti-tax" rhetoric of the GOP, enough to become "confused" with conservatives. Even as Libertarians have been much less "vocal" (than liberals anyway) re: the assaults on individual "liberties" by social conservatives. This certainly hasn't helped Libertarian "credibility" (among other things).
You're are right, but at the same time people tend to pick the lesser of two evils since the Libertarian Party has failed to gain ground even in local elections.
So, what do you choose, the party that takes away personal liberties only or both personal and economic liberties? Democrats may give lip service to personal liberties, but they are just as bad as Republicans in the personal liberty arena.
Think about it, they only give lip service to two areas, abortion and gay marriage. In fact, some Dems aren't even for full blown gay marriage or abortion. Most Dems are for continuing the War on Drugs, most won't legalize prostitution, most are for the "Patriot" Act.
So, are the Dems really for personal liberties, or just the ones advocated for by strong interest groups within the party (feminists and gays)?
Libertarianism isn't rooted in Constitutionalism, silly. Nor is it ever, under any circumstances, compatible with legal positivism as you implied in your solution.
Any legal [statutory, common law, statutory, or regulatory] codification which violates the libertarian premise is prima facie illegitimate.
Even for sake of arguendo if the right to free association became morally illegitimate, as you so desperately want to make it illegal (per your Constitutional amendment suggestion), and even if it was thus compatible with libertarian ethics (an absurdity for multiple reasons to be addressed separately), the moral bindingness of it as absolutely nothing to do with your Constitutional amendment. The moral bindingness comes from the ethical framework itself, not because somebody wrote something on a piece of paper and then voila... somehow you magically think libertarians should think that writing it down is a morally significant act in itself.
Hence, such an inclusion into the Constitution would not resolve the matter, since the Constitution has zero bearing on libertarianism in its entirety. Libertarianism is not legal positivism, nor is virtually any other ethical system ever devised by man a form of legal positivism.
Good morning,
I never said libertarianism was, silly. I simply said they would have no argument since most libertarians are less willing to dispute an amendment to the Constitution vs. a law created the Congress with one section that appears to be unconstitutional.
Unless our country is willing to accept a full-blown libertarian government (or at least one at the state level), I prefer to frame my arguments based on our current framework of government, the Constitution and its' amendments.
If you want to frame the debate based on pure libertarianism, I would be happy to oblige. Unfortunately, you would probably find the debate unnecessary, as we would most likely agree on the finer points.
Well, that's part of the problem, isn't it, that Libertarians have so often been "seduced" by the "anti-tax" rhetoric of the GOP, enough to become "confused" with conservatives. Even as Libertarians have been much less "vocal" (than liberals anyway) re: the assaults on individual "liberties" by social conservatives. This certainly hasn't helped Libertarian "credibility" (among other things).
I really don't know what "libertarians" you listen to or you may be thinking the Tea Party? The GOP are part of the flawed system, they don't seduce anyone.
Libertarians are the only champions of individual liberties on a consistent basis. Liberals are inconstant on the drug war and gay marriage, to name just a few. I knew very few dems in my activism in CA that was in promotion of individual liberties.
The most common thing I hear is we need to stop focusing on the drug war, all the wars and gay marriage and we should focus on taxes.
There is nothing on which to demonstrate the failure of libertarian principles because they've never been put into practice in this country. So I'd like to know why critics of libertarianism are so dang critical of something that hasn't demonstrated failure, since it hasn't even been practiced.
Because too many people don't think they should have to take any personal responsibility for themselves. They want a nanny federal government to take care of them.
The herd/ sheeple mentality is hard to break away from. You've been forced to repeat party mantra for years and years and you believe that your party is the only one that will give you what you want and everybody not in your party is the enemy. So when a new upstart or fringe party has some different ideas, ones that may or may not work as opposed to the two major parties ideas that we know DON'T work, theres natural resistance.
Its fear and ignorance of the unknown. Nobody wants to risk losing anything or give up anything. Think of libertarianism as the horseless carriage of the current political age.
You have the republicans as the train barons and the democrats are the wagon makers and blacksmiths.
There is nothing on which to demonstrate the failure of libertarian principles because they've never been put into practice in this country. So I'd like to know why critics of libertarianism are so dang critical of something that hasn't demonstrated failure, since it hasn't even been practiced.
Actually for the first 100 years it worked just fine,
with the exception of slavery, woman rights
America is not what you think
Libertarians know better
Actually for the first 100 years it worked just fine,
with the exception of slavery, woman rights
America is not what you think
Libertarians know better
Please study the ideology before you criticize it.
America was never libertarian, I don't know why folks think they are clever by saying this and throwing in slavery and women's rights. The fact that these things existed prove libertarianism never existed in the USA.
Slavery is aggression. Discrimination is aggression. The highest libertarian principle is non-aggression.
Women being unable to own property in early America is a violation of property rights. Property rights is the 2nd highest principle of libertarianism.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,451,396 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
You're are right, but at the same time people tend to pick the lesser of two evils since the Libertarian Party has failed to gain ground even in local elections.
So, what do you choose, the party that takes away personal liberties only or both personal and economic liberties? Democrats may give lip service to personal liberties, but they are just as bad as Republicans in the personal liberty arena.
Think about it, they only give lip service to two areas, abortion and gay marriage. In fact, some Dems aren't even for full blown gay marriage or abortion. Most Dems are for continuing the War on Drugs, most won't legalize prostitution, most are for the "Patriot" Act.
So, are the Dems really for personal liberties, or just the ones advocated for by strong interest groups within the party (feminists and gays)?
"Just as bad"?!! Then you apparently haven't been paying attention to any of the leading GOP presidential "hopefuls" lately (like Perry, Palin, Bachmann, et al). Or perhaps you're unfamiliar with the Christian Right Wing's goal of a Christian "Dominion" (aka, a Theocracy!)? And where are all the Libertarians speaking up about that?
Oh, I forgot, they're too busy talking about "taxes"!!
The rich have/accumulate all the resources and pass it down from one generation to the next , who do nothing to earn their inheritance, other than be born lucky.
Thats the basic concept of libertarianism.
Its also the concept of a monarchy.
Libertarians are simply another name for neo-monarchists.
The additional dismissal I make of libertarianism is that it perpetuates the myth that hard work= success. It doesn't. There are plenty of people out there who have worked hard and are getting screwed in this country by the real "takers" (Wall Street and stockholders).
If libertarianism offered some sort of solutions to these flaws, I might be more open. However they're pretty big flaws.
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 register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
