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.
Mr Libertarian has no clue about the origin, for instance, of the public education system. He should check it out. He thinks that the Federalist Papers represents the "navel of history" that is the standard by which all discussion is measured. This is a radically know-nothing point of view. But this is typical of the libertarians. They have come up with a half-baked set of ideas that is a huge STEP BACKWARDS in American history, and it basically is a hymn to selfishness dressed up as if it is a real political philosophy. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
wouldn't he have to follow it as well? I don't understand your logic.. that is how change happens is by amending the constitution, but he's pointing out that you are using origional documents from one era to prove a point in today's society.. and it has no basis.. for the reasons he stated above...
The only thing we can be sure of is CHANGE... things will change.. new situations will arise.. and we'll be asked to take a particular stance...
I don't think the founding fathers had a public education system in mind either... but yet we have one.. because at some point in our history.. it was realized that it is important to have.... Small Federal Government is only good for the rich.. in that they don't have anyone regulating them.. and they can just take from the society at will.. whether it be resources, labour, etc..
Everyone Criticizes Big Government, but in proper context of why its needed.. it explains itself.. when you lose your job and are forced to file for unemployement to ensure your family gets thru the 6 months of without having a job.. you can thank that "big" government for it...
I have savings and choose to live debt free to ensure that my family isn't impacted by unemployment.
The Constitution provides an avenue for change though amendments. If you don't like it, change it. If you can't the get support for that amendment, too bad. Why can't our federal government follow its own laws?
The federal Department of Education was created in 1979. Did we not have public education before 1979? No, it was and continues to be a function of state and local government. The founders didn't need to think about education or healthcare... it's covered by the 10th Amendment.
Mr Libertarian has no clue about the origin, for instance, of the public education system. He should check it out. He thinks that the Federalist Papers represents the "navel of history" that is the standard by which all discussion is measured. This is a radically know-nothing point of view. But this is typical of the libertarians. They have come up with a half-baked set of ideas that is a huge STEP BACKWARDS in American history, and it basically is a hymn to selfishness dressed up as if it is a real political philosophy. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Instead of spouting rhetoric, let's hear some facts.
Do you not feel that we should follow the Constitution? When did we overthrow the government of the United States and form a new government and draft a new constitution?
I think that we do follow the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has adhered more to an approximation of Hamilton's version of the "general welfare" clause than Jefferson's, or Madison's.
Jeez, I hear this meme alot... but Hillary is one of the least "liberal" Democrat candidates out there, if you mean by "liberal" as aligning with the left. People need to put down their NRA mags, turn off Rush, and listen to what she really says and has stood for as being a Senator and now a presidential candidate.
Somebody who was a socialist wouldn't take truckloads of money in campaign contributions from the insurance industry, for starters. Her healthcare plan is pretty modest and is not similar at all to the one in Canada, it is more similar to programs in Germany or Japan.
Personally, I don't like Hillary because she is too much supportive of corporate interests (not a populist), is a bit of a war hawk. She's one step to the left of Joseph Lieberman. But she has so far been in no way a "socialist", and I doubt she would lead the country all that much to the left.
I favor Obama or especially Edwards. They are further to the left and at the same time have a populist message.
Now, if you want to get really left wing, Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel would be closer to it than that.
Please don't talk to me about the Federalist Papers. The founders didn't want women to vote. For a while they wanted only landowners to vote. RIGHT! We don't live in 1790.
You are basically talking about what I would call an "F U" society. Don't like how the employer treats you? F U, you have no rights. Don't like restraint of trade? F U, you have no recourse. Don't like that I discriminate against you by not allowing you to buy or rent in this neighborhood? F U, you have to live on the other side of town. Gimme a break. Those days aren't ever coming back, so you can give it up.
Libertariansm is for the rich. Small government is for the rich. Give it up. Selfishness and anti-citizen behavior is a half-baked philosophy. Actually an anachronism.
Your statements describe perfectly the mind-set of the powerful liberals. "The poor can't survive without big government." Do you not realize how insulting this is to those you consider the poor? You display no faith in their abilities to overcome adversity and achieve anything without the government (other taxpayers) providing it for them. Libertarianism celebrates the individual and has faith that all can achieve to their potential. Statism, as you ascribe to, believes just the opposite. Politicians who support statism, as does H.C., are empowered so long as individuals decide to rely on the government instead of achieving their goals. With this attitude, there will be more New Orleans disasters, more crime, and more poor. As people do progress these liberals lose control and have their power diminishes.
I guess it depends on what day you hear her talk. I think her overall tone is that of government taking care of everyone from cradle to caskett. Sounds pretty socialist to me.
The federal Department of Education was created in 1979. Did we not have public education before 1979? No, it was and continues to be a function of state and local government. The founders didn't need to think about education or healthcare... it's covered by the 10th Amendment.
THe founders didn't think about protons, neutrinos, the theory of evolution, either... but that doesn't make those ideas inherently unconstitutional or un-American.
I suppose this is the real difference between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives see the Constitution as a rule-book, a canon, liberals and progressives see it as a framework.
The Federalist papers are significant in understanding the true intent of the Constitution. The founders were unable to put these explanations into the Constitution, so instead, they used these papers and other writings to explain their thoughts. Though circumstances changes and new issues appear, the solutions can still be guided by the principles provided in the Constitution. The Constitution is still relevent and stands as a guide to limit the intrusion of the federal government into the daily lives of its citizens.
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.
