This is in response to a number of posts made by myckob4, where he basically throws strawman fallacies and ad hominem attacks at me because I am not part of his socialist cult. Anyway, he doesn't seem to have the slightest clue what libertarianism is, so for so for you, here is the founding document of libertarianism, so you can understand what it is and maybe you can come up with actual arguments rather than incoherent bullshit (not likely):
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/locke1689a.pdf
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
1) I am not a socialist so you can stop that shit right there as per CyberLN.
2) I am not "Bob' so you can stop that right there as per CyberLN
3) It doesn't matter what Libertarianism was founded upon because it has never actually supported any of those ideals.
4) Libertarians want a pay as you go plan privatizing everything, which amounts to discrimination in medical care, education, and many things.
5) The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America:
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_preamble.html
"promote the general Welfare" a passage that libertarians just flat out ignore.
6) Libertarians don't want equality, fairness, justice. They advocate racism, hatred, discrimination, and corporate corruption.
If anyone doesn't agree with what they advocate, they automatically call you a "socialist" and they actually have no idea what that means.
3. The ideals are libertarianism, you cannot be a libertarian but not accept libertarian principles.
4. You mean we want to ban Health Insurance and get rid of education? I know Milton Friedman supported pay as you go in principle, but to say that we want to ban Insurance is just absurd. As far as education is concerned, Adam Smith even said that the state should pay for education, otherwise the society will break down. See Book 5, Chapter 1, Part 3, Article 2 of the Wealth of Nations.
5. It isn't that we ignore it, its that you are misinterpreting it. Back then 'the general welfare' simply meant being protected from invasions or criminal behavior.
6. It's in the Libertarian Party Platform actually:
"We advocate a Federal Law mandating racism, hatred, discrimation and corruption."
Also myckob4, I only call socialists socialists, look at the definition.
@Harry Truman
I'm confused. I went to the 2016 Libertarian Party Platform at https://www.lp.org/platform/ and could not find your statement. I did, however, find the following paragraph:
Perhaps you can provide me a direct link to your statement from the Libertarian Party Platform or other page on their website. Thank you!
I was being sarcastic, the point was there is no such passage.
What you say is so crazy there is no way to tell what you are serious about and when you are being sarcastic. You have said far crazier shit here and been serious.
Listen, Harry Truman, what you think a socialist is is very far from what a socialist really is.
You think that general welfare means protection from invasion when protection from invasion is addressed separately and in great detail in the Constitution. You only need to read the Federalist Papers to understand what the Constitution means about general welfare. Nowhere and I mean nowhere in either the Constitution or the Federalist Papers do they specify that general welfare means protection from invasion or criminal behavior.
Adam Smith was a self-taught economist but he wasn't the end all best advocate for society as a whole. In fact, if the New Republic had practiced Adam Smith's ideas, the nation would have failed. Hamilton provided the solution and the economic engine for this nation. I am not questioning Smith's ideas as a whole, nor his social ideas. In my mind many were good, but I advocate for the reality that Smith could not and did not envision.
Libertarians rail against the Fed, but the Fed grew this country and secured its financial solvency. I am not a socialist by any means. I do see the function of the federal government to having more of a role than just maintaining an Army. In fact, the Constitution didn't intend for the nation to have a standing Army in the first place. And since there was no such thing as a police force in 1789, then it is clear that you are wrong about the intent of general welfare and what it meant at the creation of the Constitution.
You said, " Back then 'the general welfare' simply meant being protected from invasions or criminal behavior."
Fact: a) There was no police federal or otherwise in 1789
b) There is no provision for a standing Army in the Constitution.
So you must be wrong about what was meant by the phrase "general welfare."
I think that you can be a Libertarian and still not agree with the original ideals of Libertarianism, just as it is with Democratic principles and Republican principles.
I know that you didn't actually mean #6 so I'll ignore it.
But I will say this, public education gives an opportunity to people through no fault of their own are born in circumstances that would not afford them an education. This is the case with most but not all general welfare programs.
The Federalist Papers did have an effect on the founding of the Constitution, but the Federalists were only half of the founding fathers, the ones who advocated greater centralization. Granted, under the Articles of Confederation that is exactly what we needed, but even the ideal government of Hamilton would seem very small relative to how large and invasive the Government is today.
The other half of our founding fathers followed Jeffersons views, who also signed the Declaration of Independence and whose ideas influenced the Constitution, though he was off at France while it was being written. Jefferson explicitly stated that taking 'general welfare' to be a blank check for the Federal Government to do 'whatever may be in the interest of the united states to do,' would 'render the entire constitution irrelevant .' It isn't entirely clear what he thought general welfare meany, but it is very clear by the 10th Amendment that it was not supposed to give congress a blank check to do whatever they want.
Adam Smith was not self taught, he studied at both Oxford University and the University of Glasgow, and is the father of Modern economics. Alexander Hamiltons policies did not provide the solution and economic engine of the nation- the basis of our wealth was built up during the Second Industrial Revolution after the Civil War. That was when we had double digit GDP growth rates and are developing the fastest.
The Federal Reserve did not 'grow this country and secured its financial solvency,' it inflated a bubble once it was created then popped it and put us into the Great Depression. It has been destroying our economy, devaluing our currency, and eating away at our middle class with inflation. The Federal Reserve has been a complete disaster and it needs to be done away with.
Also, we did have police in 1789, and we actually had them since 1630.
Modern public education doesn't help kids get jobs or increase their economic value in any way- it used to, but with greater centralization came lower quality. This is why people have come to prefer charter schools like K12, and more recently inspire, when k12 went whack. Its because public education actually makes kids dumber. If public schools were so much better than private schools, we should have nothing to worry about giving parents the choice to divert those funds to a private school.
@Harry Truman
Those are just your opinions.
The Great Depression was caused by unregulated speculation and no financial banking laws, not the Federal Reserve.
Private and charter schools only serve to drain resources from public education and thus destroying public education. They are simply a war on unions and workers and have nothing to do with providing an education or an opportunity for students.
The police organizations prior to 1789 were private and only served the wealthy. They were essentially out of control thug gangs with no regard for the rule of law.
Adam Smith did attend those universities but his education had nothing to do with sociology or economics. His ideas for both were self-taught which is why I stated as such.
The Federalist Papers were written to explain the Constitution so that the Constitution would be ratified in each state making it the law of the land. To ignore the Federalist Papers is to ignore the Constitution. You are attempting to justify a redefinition of the Constitution to fit your narrative. There is no other half of the founding fathers. The Constitution was written by James Madison with help from the other great legal mind of the time, John Jay. They presented what they had written to Congress (the entire Founding Fathers). Each point was debated and suggestions for modifications were introduced. Madison and Jay took those proposals and complete redrafts. Finally, a finish Constitution went before Congress and it was approved. There is no alternative version, no other founding fathers, no parallel interpretation. The Constitution is the Constitution, a living document, progressive, and the supreme rule of law. The Federalist Papers is the only acceptable definition of what was meant by every written word of the Constitution.
We already know you're a conspiracy theorist about the Federal Reserve, remember when you linked your profile on that debate site and it listed The Creature from Jekyll Island as one of your favorite books? For those who are not familiar with it (unfortunately I have read it); it is a notorious conspiracy theory book written by the notorious conspiracy theorist, G. Edward Griffin. Here are some of the other topics he has written about:
I don't recall that- I am not talking conspiracy theories either. These are historic facts, even Ben Betnake admitted he Federal Reserve caused the great depression, if you still think its a conspiracy theory after having been so thoroughly established, I don't know what to tell you.
Ever meet a conspiracy theorist who didn't think their theory was thoroughly established?
Anyway, for anyone who is interested:
Sound familiar?
I never said it was deliberate, it may have been, but that is near impossible to prove- what I said is that it did create the Great Depression- whether it was by negligence or deliberate is irrelevant.
Also, that the Federal Reserve deliberately creates inflation isnt a conspiracy theory at all, they even have a target inflation rate of 2%, and if its anything lower they claim inflation is too low and start printing more money.
The myth that the Federal Reserve prints money is common among conspiracy theorists; it does not.
Sorry for using a technically incorrect word- it calls ye Bureau of Engraving and Printing and they print the money. They also create money out of thin air by making loans to banks that exist entirely on the books of Federal Reserve Regional banks. The twchnicsllities don't really matter.
Another common cry of the conspiracy theorists; that details don't matter.
Because that doesn't matter- of course no one believes that the Federal Reserve prints the money themselves, its a figure of speech- just like almost no one believes that the sun literally rises and sets, we just say that because it's easier then saying that the earth rotates while revolving around the sun, giving the illusion that the sun is rising or setting. Just because I say 'the sun rose' doesn't mean Im a flat earther. That's absurd.
We know you are a ravenous consumer of conspiracy theories. We also know you embrace this specific conspiracy theory. It isn't absurd to assume that when you repeat a lie of this conspiracy theory, that you are serious.
I believe what has evidence behind it. I said the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, that is an established Fact. Ben Bernake Admitted it, historic facts back it up.
V.S. Libertarian sources:
So, some libertarian sources claim that the Fed didn't cause the Great Depression, therefore?
Milton Friedman, the Economist of the Century, wrote an entire book about how it did cause the Great Depression. If "A monetary history of the United States" is too long for you, read the chapter in Free to Choose about it.
Citing that Friedman says A is true; is a good way to convince me that that A is false.
You said 'these libertarian sources say this,' and I cited a libertarian source saying the opposite.
Exactly; you told us this was an established fact. Clearly it is not.
Yes, it is- like I said before, Ben Bernake Admitted it, historic facts back it up, and Forbes has released blatantly incorrect information before.
How much blatantly false information have you posted on these forums? Do we need to go over the list again?
It isn't my opinion, mist economists today agree that the Federal Reserve did cause the Great Depression. It couldn't have been a lack of financial regulation because we had that exact same situation for over 100 years prior, yet we didn't have the same financial collapse. The reason was that the money supply was reduced by one third, which was caused by the Feds tight monetary policy.
Private schools receive no Federal Funding, and Charter schools do not receive any more money per student than what was already put forth by the Federal, State and Local governments. I agree they are not good for the teachers union, but that's a good thing.
The first police forces in America were actually created by city governments.
http://www.nleomf.org/museum/news/newsletters/online-insider/2012/April-...
The Federalist Papers were arguments advocating the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. They are good for historic context, but like I said before, immediately after the Constitution was created, 2 parties formed- the Democratic Republican Party of Jefferson which advocated an egalitarian democracy and agrarian republic with a small Federal Government and strict adherence to the Constitution. The other was the Federalist Party of Hamilton which advocated a larger federal government. Washington was an independent and more of a Centrist, supporting some policies from both parties. He appointed Hamilton Treasurer, and Jefferson Secretary of State, so that they would taddle on the other if they did anything wrong. You can read all about it here:
http://time.com/4210440/jefferson-hamilton-excerpt/
You say:
"The Constitution is the Constitution, a living document, progressive, and the supreme rule of law."
The Constitution IS the Constitution, it says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say.
A ludicrous statement to be sure.
I have read your reference for the first police force and it was as I said a private police force that didn't answer to a federal government because there was no United States of America until decades later. I was a little off on my numbers. The first municipal police force was established in 1830 in Boston but its actual scope was very limited. Several big American cities followed slowly and reluctantly years later.
http://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/history-policing-united-states-part-1
There was no national law enforcement until years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
As far as public schools go. Private schools including religious schools get federal funding that takes money away from public education. Increasing this funding is the argument. Charter schools are also bleeding public schools. It is a concerted effort to end public education and denying education to people that can't afford it. The purpose is to privatize education and drive down wages of educators to minimum wage levels. This has been tried in Philadelphia and other major cities and they are all abject failures. It is just like privatizing prisons for the same reason.
I know the history of both parties. The idea that two parties formed doesn't change anything. You say that Jefferson advocated a strict adherence of the Constitution which is not true at all. He actually opposed many aspects of the Constitution. Since Hamilton worked with Madison and Jay to not only actually write the Constitution but he also wrote most of the Federalist papers which is the authority in interpritation of the Constitution, it is more accurate that Hamilton was staying more inline with a strict adherence to the Constitution.
I said it was created by a local government, we didn't have any Federal Law enforcement until the 20th Century with the FBI, prior to that law enforcement was handled by local governments, and still is.
Saying that charter schools are an attempt to abolish public education so that no one who can't afford education can get it, is absurd. Charter Schools give lids educations and do not charge them for it. If they did, I don't think they should get any funding. Giving parents the option to send their kids to charter schools and divert the funds going to their education elsewhere is just common sense. If they were failures and offered lower quality educations, parents wouldn't send their kids there. The very fact that they are diverting funds away from public schools proves that they are offering superior services.
Jefferson did oppose certain parts of the Constitution, the entire document was formed by making compromises on both sides, but Hamilton violated it far more than Jefferson did. The Central Bank is a perfect example- the Constitution says in Article 1 Section 8 that 'the Congress shall have the power... to coin money and regulate the value thereof,' and in Article 1 Section 1 that '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,' making the Central Bank completely unconstitutional, not to mention the tenth Amendment.
Jeffersons biggest violation was the Louisiana Purchase, which was actually a good move, but unauthorized.
You are so naive Harry T. It isn't even funny. You have bought into the "PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING" propaganda bullshit.
You are against unions and all unions are is a way to fight for fair wages, safe working conditions.
That is just one thing that you are dead wrong on.
You are wrong about the intent of the Constitution which I proved. The Central Bank is in no way shape or form a violation of the Constitution.
I think that you actually need a tutor in Constitutional history/law. You don't understand what you are reading. So Hamilton created the Central Bank, IT WAS APPROVED BY CONGRESS and operated under the oversite of that Congress. It made loans and charged interest. That is what banks do.
The FED if you don't know, answers to CONGRESS NOT the president.
Also, you don't know how Charter schools operate, who qualifies to go to them and who is denied, and who is actually mandated to go to school there.
Pages