Thread: Libertarians: jetway for the human spirit or goat path to feudalism?

Well I didn't read all 208 posts so I hope I am not saying something that has already been said. Then again since so many people are missing it I will.

Libertarianism permits the use of government to stop people from harming each other. So every time someone posts some injustice that would result if libertarianism came to be more prevalent and government were not around to regulate it they are forgetting that government would be around to regulate and stop the injustice.

Whatever flaws in libertarianism you want to post cannot be injustice as a result of lack of government.

You might say that there would be undesirable events that fail to be injustice. But someone else might find them to be desirable. And forcing one persons desire on another without constitutional backing is immoral. Even with constitutional backing it might be immoral but at least it is legal.


You might say that it is inefficient. But since we can't measure that it would just be theory.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

If you're going to babble that the "majority" support socialism, I'm going to give you the correct definition of the word "majority" and show your lie for what it is.

The majority supports "federal government" since when did "socialism" mean "federal governemnt."

I remember someone else was saying this before, by your definition, any government beyond what is already in the Constitution is "socialism" and "big government."

The founding fathers knew that the coutnry would have to grow, or else amendments wouldn't exist...

You assume they don't like either alternative. Which means they did not support whoever it is that won.

It's not complicated.

Why are you saying "either" alternative. Third parties exist so there is always another alternative.

You throw away your vote by not voting, but voting for a third party isn't throwing away your vote.

Then they're wrong.

I'm easy.

you are easy

Why not? The poor don't have any prior claims on someone else's money. It wouldn't be someone else's money if they did, and they wouldn't be poor.



No. My education was my investment in my future. Stealing money from me to give someone else an education isn't helping my future in any way at all.

Why are you saying "my future" it is about the future of the entire country that counts, don't be greedy. People in America need to be patriotic and willing to sacrifice their well being for the good of the country.

The power to control naturalization is granted to Congress under Article I, Section 8. And I'm not sure how the freedom from being forced to testify against yourself applies to immigration/naturalization issues.

It is only naturalization issues, why did you say "immigration/naturalization issues"?

Naturalization is just laws to determine who becomes a US citizen, laws about people who sneak in illegally are completely different. I just looked up the word to be sure, and that is what it means. Look it up too.

You mean the Constitution can't permit the government to control who comes in or out of the country?

That's a very strange idea.

The Constitution just says that it can pick which people can enter, but it doesn't talk about border control or what to do when people are sneaking in when they are not suppose to. We just need to add an amendment to the Constitution, it isn't that hard because people will support it.

When the US was founded we had no need for a federally controlled policy on illegal immigration, because it didn't exist then, that is why the Constitution needs to be altered every so often when a new problem arrises.

[/quote]
Yes, we know you resent the Constitution. All socialists do.[/quote]

How do I resent the Constituion? I am just following it, whereas you are just following it when it suits you.

If you are going to truely be a strict Constitutionist you need to accept all parts of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Well I didn't read all 208 posts so I hope I am not saying something that has already been said. Then again since so many people are missing it I will.

Libertarianism permits the use of government to stop people from harming each other. So every time someone posts some injustice that would result if libertarianism came to be more prevalent and government were not around to regulate it they are forgetting that government would be around to regulate and stop the injustice.

Whatever flaws in libertarianism you want to post cannot be injustice as a result of lack of government.

You might say that there would be undesirable events that fail to be injustice. But someone else might find them to be desirable. And forcing one persons desire on another without constitutional backing is immoral. Even with constitutional backing it might be immoral but at least it is legal.


You might say that it is inefficient. But since we can't measure that it would just be theory.

Interesting. That still has the problem that I have mentioned many times with FFA.

If the majority of people agree on a government program (such as regulation of food) and a Constitutional amendment is passed, then wouldn't that validate the agency?

I mean there is always going to be a problem with some people being against a government program, no matter on what level it is on. Therefore, there needs to be a threshhold of a certain amount of people to support something before it can be passed on everyone. I think a 2/3 majority is enough to pass that threshhold.

However, I can see a problem if in many years only 3/5 of the people oppose the agency, then there is still no way to remove it by the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

Interesting. That still has the problem that I have mentioned many times with FFA.

If the majority of people agree on a government program (such as regulation of food) and a Constitutional amendment is passed, then wouldn't that validate the agency?

I mean there is always going to be a problem with some people being against a government program, no matter on what level it is on. Therefore, there needs to be a threshhold of a certain amount of people to support something before it can be passed on everyone. I think a 2/3 majority is enough to pass that threshhold.

However, I can see a problem if in many years only 3/5 of the people oppose the agency, then there is still no way to remove it by the Constitution.

Some things are wrong no matter how many people support them. A majority of support doesn't make your position the right one.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

The majority supports "federal government" since when did "socialism" mean "federal governemnt."

Hello? I support federal government, and I'm totally immune to Socialism.

And "the majority" is a slippery term that you've already been spanked for misusing.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

I remember someone else was saying this before, by your definition, any government beyond what is already in the Constitution is "socialism" and "big government."

Pretty much. If it has to steal my money to make someone else feel less guilty, it's infected by socialism.

The government of the United States was formed to protect our freedom.

Making the productive among us slaves to the slugs doesn't protect their freedom.

Can't you people try to find a country that wasn't founded on the concept of personal liberty to experiment with?

Originally Posted by Nerv14

The founding fathers knew that the coutnry would have to grow, or else amendments wouldn't exist...

And they knew the slavemasters and tyrants would try to put the steel collars back on the people if it was too easy to amend the Constitution, so they made it almost impossible to do.

So the socialists have spent the last century lying about what the Constitution is for, what it does, and what it permits, and they've corrupted the judicial process to get their way.

You support lies. Does that make you happy?

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Hello? I support federal government, and I'm totally immune to Socialism.

And "the majority" is a slippery term that you've already been spanked for misusing.



Pretty much. If it has to steal my money to make someone else feel less guilty, it's infected by socialism.

The government of the United States was formed to protect our freedom.

Making the productive among us slaves to the slugs doesn't protect their freedom.

Can't you people try to find a country that wasn't founded on the concept of personal liberty to experiment with?



And they knew the slavemasters and tyrants would try to put the steel collars back on the people if it was too easy to amend the Constitution, so they made it almost impossible to do.

So the socialists have spent the last century lying about what the Constitution is for, what it does, and what it permits, and they've corrupted the judicial process to get their way.

You support lies. Does that make you happy?

I said that as long as there is a large enough majority, 2/3 in both houses of Congress, then socialism can exist.

How is it almost impossible to amendmend the Constitution if it is just done with a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress? and my point is that if that 2/3 majority is obtained then that means that the idea of the new power of Congress has passed its "almost impossible" test.

Don't make a strawman argument, amendments to the Constitution won't make us slaves, do you have any of the smallest bit of evidence at all for that?

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Some things are wrong no matter how many people support them. A majority of support doesn't make your position the right one.

Fair enough, but since that is true, then there is no way to tell what is right and what is wrong, which I can live with. (which also means that because a minority believe something with incredibly zeal then it also doesn't make it true...)

I am just saying that if enough people support something then it will becomes Constitutional unless it violates another amendment, that is all I have been saying.