Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Is the Libertarian View Valid?

No, Democrats are a lot worse. The dems/libs openly support larger government, to the point of socialism. They are anti-freedom to a much larger degree. They want to increase taxes, federalize and take control of most everything, take away our guns, and dictate how we think through political correctness. They want us to be happy little sheep and do as we're told.

I agree, the Republicans are far from perfect. It is the nature of governments to grow, and the government has indeed grown under the Republicans--but not nearly as much as under the dems/libs. Further, the focus of the Republicans/conservatives is less on government solutions, more on cutting taxes, and more on individual freedoms and responsibilities. They want to push power down to lower levels.

I think we agree that the Libertarian approach is what we all want, but it is fantasy to think the Libertarian party will ever wield significant power. We can either kick dirt in the face of the Republicans and have NO say in what goes on, or we can work in incrementally get our agenda into the mainstream of the party and get results.

"War of Northern Aggression". I grew up in Oregon, and as such have no stake in this whole South vs North thing. Oregon did become a state in 1859 and as such, was pro-Union. However, the conflicting interests present at that time were just not a significant part of life in Oregon. As such, I have a fairly objective view of the Civil War, as I have no stake in either side.

In short, slavery was wrong--period. Slavery was the catalyst for the conflict. After studying Lincoln, I am convinced preserving the Union and abolishing slavery were his motivations. I believe God placed Lincoln as the president during that time. Interestingly, there were more abolitionist societies in the South than in the North. Perhaps slavery was on its way out without the war, maybe not.

Now the North didn't exactly have the moral high ground, as they greatly benefitted from the affordable products made available due to slave labor. The North could have helped the South economically during this time to facilitate a peaceful transisiton out of slavery.

I see several reasons the Civil War was fought.

1. To end slavery
2. To preserve the Union
3. To maintain state's rights
4. Young men looking for an adventure/wanting to prove themselves in war
5. Economic survival for the South
6. Ego

I'm sure there are other reasons people fought. Regardless, to view the war being fought over one issue--regardless of what side a person is are on--is inaccurate.

The USA PATRIOT Act and Office of Homeland Security do indeed have potenital for abuse and corruption. Power corrups. However, what do you think the dems/libs would ahve come up with?

Blaine

I have to disagree with your order of reasons. The war was not about slavery at the onset, but about states rights. The north controlled both houses of Congrees and imposed their will on the south on any law they wanted. SEE TARIFFS.
To preserve the union, yes, the north needed the south to fund their infrastructure through tariffs.
The south fought to maintain states rights.
Let me ask you, as a member of the military would you follow an order to disarm Americans? I think that is about as close as we would come to a repeat of that war. And don't get your panties in a wad just because I disagree with you, I'm just disagreeing with you. Not invading your home. Bob
P.S. I didn't vote for W. (guess who)

The reasons I listed were not necessarily in order of importance. Southerners will likely consider 3 and 5 as the top two reasons, where Notherners would probably pick 1 and 2. However, I am suspicious #5 was a bigger driver than most care to admit.

How are TARRIFS not part of reason 5?

Would I follow an order to disarm Americans? Which Americans? Organized crime--yes. A radical anti-US militia--yes.

Why would I care if you disagree with me?

Blaine

I'm afraid you did get your panties in a wad. Reconsider and reply tomorrow, when you are thinking clearer. I didn't say anything about organized crime or radical militias. At any rate those would be law enforcement issues, not defending against invaders.
Please excuse me for being an idiot and assuming that you followed the normal listing of reasons in order of importance. Talk to you in a day or two. Take care. Bob

I'm sorry, I didn't explain fully. The tariffs were imposed on agricultural products to fund infrastucture improvements in the north. The south got screwed in the appropriation bills. Get it? Bob

Unfortunately, the Declaration of Independence is not the document that this country is founded on, but rather an excuse, or explanation if you prefer, for the founding fathers declaring themselves to be in a state of rebellion against their legitimate government. At the time the Declaration was written there was no United States of America but rather 13 individual colonies that weren't necessarily thinking of themselves as states yet, mostly, but not always, acting in concert and most often trying to promote their own control over the proceedings while trying not to have to pay for anything. The founding document of the United States of America was the Articles of Confederation, which was found to be considerably lacking and was replaced by the Constitution of the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence, while a splendidly written document which makes an excellent case in favor of rebellion, is in no way, shape or form binding on either the government of the United States of America or the people of the United States of America but rather is simply what it states it is, a declaration. At the time it was written, no one who was involved in the process in any way had any legal standing to state anything for anybody or any country but rather was in open rebellion against their legitimate government. The question of whether their government at the time was or not legitimate was not decided by declaring themselves in rebellion but buy the successful comsumation of that rebellion by force of arms. You can put any other face on it that you want but the fact remains that had the rebellion been unsuccessful we wouldn't be having this disscussion now because at best we'd have attained commonwealth status and at worst we'd still be a group of occupied colonies.

The major problem with the Constitution is the way in which the branches of government are taught. The accepted manner of explaining the division of governmental power states that there are three branches of government, executive, judicial and legislative when actually there are four, the three previously mentioned plus the people, as evidenced by the opening line of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which states, "We, the people, ....". No where does it state, we the members of the federal government, nor we the representatives of the several states nor any other discription of those who wrote and/or adopted the Constitution as anyone other than "the people." Problem is that few people seem to remember and even fewer seem to care that "We, the people" created this nation and that we the people hold the ultimate power in this nation. If we have anyone to blame for the increase in the size, scope and pervasivness of government the only guilty party can be ourselves. We either forgot or didn't care that our government is our servant and not the other way around. Libertarians won't fix things any more than Republicans or Democrats will because they're still fixed on the wrong problem. The problem is not controlling a few individual aspects of government or decreasing it's size or budget or reducing it's power or any other attempt to curtail any thing that our government does. The problem is US and our inablity to get off our collective asses and exercise our ultimate power over our government and work our will on it. As long as everyone is playing the "my view point is better and my party will produce a better government than yours" game we're all still p--sing in the wind. We shouldn't want to produce a better government, we should want to control it rather than having it control us.

Guess I've digressed and touched on more than one point. Oops.

Professionals have distingushed between arms and ordnance since the days of swords and catapults. Arms commonly refers to those weapons used by one individual and ordnance commonly refers to those which are crew served. The fact that the people have a right to own ordnance is evidenced by the fact that the right still exists and is recognized, although considerably infringed, by the federal government and the governments of about half of the states. Machineguns up to fifty caliber, as opposed to true assualt rifles and submachineguns (which would be arms), can be owned by any one willing to pay the cost of the transfer and undergo (and pass) the federal background check and ordnance over fifty caliber can be owned by anyone holding a license to own a destructive device. Practically speaking, what can be owned is more limited by what the government will allow to be sold and/or imported rather than by what is allowed to be owned. I would submit that while owning ordnance may not be an enumerated right under the Second Amendment that its protection would fall under the Ninth Amendment. If so and since, as you say, we have never consented to the federal government being the exclusive owner of ordnance then I further submit that whether it is an inalienable right or whether it is not is somewhat moot since if the former it can't be denied and if the latter no action to renounce it has been taken.



As a side note, I wonder how many people, not to mention how many ATFE employees, realize that the implementing regulations concerning the ownership of destructive devices are somewhat less than accurate when defining a destructive device as being larger than fifty caliber. Technically speaking, any firearm with a barrel that is 50 times its bore diameter in length is fifty caliber. The 16 inch guns on the Iowa class battleships were fifty caliber and the 16 inch guns on the South Dakota class were forty five caliber. Since they were single shot and are not greater than fifty caliber then if they should ever be for sale one should be able to buy one simply by completing a 4473 and passing NICS. Kids, don't try this at home!

Those were reasons for Secession, not for the war. The reasons for the war were that 1) Federal troops refused to evacuate Fort Sumter, which was on sovereign Confederate territory, 2) Northern aggression was escelated further by their delivery of supplies and reinforcements to said fort, upon which the fort was fired upon by forces of the South, and 3) Northern aggression was intensified further by a massive invasion of troops into the territories of the South.



Now the question becomes, "Did the South have a right to secede?" The answer, I submit, is clearly yes. The Union was a voluntary associatioin of sovereign states from the start (it was the states who gave birth to the union, therefore the states can depart from it), and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government shall have authority to prevent any state, or group of states, from dissolving its political association with the Federal Government. And, no, secession is not the same as "insurrection" (which the Constitution does authorize the Federal Government to suppress). Insurrection means to war against one's own government, and once a group of sovereign states secedes, the government from which they have seceded is no longer their own. Insurrection against it, therefore, is impossible.



Whether you like it or not, the Declaration of Independance was a founding document of this nation. None of the Founding Fathers would support your claim to the contrary. The fact that it establishes no law is not the issue. It states our fundamental view of legitimate government, and a government's proper relationship to the people. If you have any doubts about its status in our nation, just open up your copy of the Federalist Papers (I hope you have one).



In the Declaration of Independance it states that "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., to secure the rights of its citizens to safety and happiness, as they themselves define these terms], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government." Above that it speaks of a people's right to dissolve the political bonds that had previously connected them with another government.



I think the fact that the Northern States were imposing tarriffs on the Southern states, in effect preventing them from profitably trading with Europe for industrual equipment, constituted something more than a "light or transient cause." This was in fact crippling the economy of the South, ensuring that it would forever remain in the service of the North's growing industrual economy.

I have zero emotion in this and as such, have no idea what makes you think otherwise. It appears you are reading emotion into my replies. I am all for the vigorous debate of ideas, just not personal attacks. I have seen no personal attacks here. In fact, this whole thread and been good in that regard.

I still don't see a disagreement. The tarrifs are further proof for my reason #5, that many in the South fought this war over economic reasons. When you add the tarrifs to the lack of willingness of the North to "put it's money where it's mouth was" and provide economic aid to the South to help in the transition from slavery, the ecomic reason becomes even more compelling.

Blaine

RH,



Good points.



What you have described is certainly the rationale I have heard many Southerners use to justify secession. I am not saying it is invalid, but like I posted earlier, it is just part of the story--not the whole picture. To an outside observer, the South's insistence that the issue was state's right looks like a smokescreen for justifying slavery and their economic concerns. Conversly, the North's insistence that the war was fought over just slavery also appears as a smokescreen to justify their own economic reasons. I think it is muddier than that.



Though the constitution doesn't specifically state the federal government has the authority to prevent states from seceding, it is a well understood principal of formal governments, practiced from the beginning of civilization. The colonies would not have even developed a union (and almost didn't) if it was just simply a matter of associating together whenever they felt is was convienent or economically beneficial. If they did not have a committment to remain a nation, then the whole constitutional process was meaningless and there never was a USA.



As such, the secession was illegal. A legal secession would have been the result of a vote in congress, signed by the president, and not held unconstitutional by the supreme court. Yes, it wouldn't have happened because the North was in power and was taking advantage of the South. Such is the nature of the party in power. Power corrupts.



It's no different today when city folk are the majority and get laws passed to the detriment of the rest of the country. The answer is to work within our system to make a legal change--not take up arms against our countrymen. Yes, there is a point when armed rebellion is called for, but we are not at that point yet. We still have amny legal avenues to use to make progress to our goal of a more Libertarian America. How exactly to do that was the whole point of my starting this thread.



Blaine

Blaine, unlike previous republics, the republic called the United States of America is a "compound republic," rather than a "single republic." This is unique in human history. In a "single republic," all power and sovereignty is surrendered by the individual states joining it, which then become mere subdivisions of the central republic. Not the case with our "federal" republican system.



In Federalist No. 32 we read, "The state governments clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act [i.e., the act of union via the signing of the Constitution], exclusively delegated to the United States." The states had in fact never, via the Constitution, relinquished the sovereign right to dissolve their political connection with the Federal Government (If you say they had, then please show me where specifically in the Constitution the delegation to the central government of this sovereign right is enumerated). Therefore, they still retained said right at the time of the Confederate secession.



The powers of the Federal Government are "few and defined," says Federalist No. 45, while the powers of the states remain "numerous and indefinite." The state's powers "extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Southern States deemed that continued union with the Federal Government of the United States of America was detrimental to these ends, and justly exercised their sovereign power in dissolving said union, as was their right as sovereign states.

At least the Democrats are honest about their intentions, which can't be said for the Republicans. The Republicans campaign on a platform of smaller government, but in fact produce bigger government. Therefore, in this particular event I score the Republicans lower than the Democrats.

That might have worked before 9/11 gave the Republicans an opportunity to show their true anti-freedom colors without taking too much popular heat for it. Since 9/11, I think the Republicans are going to have a lot tougher job pawning that particular lie off on anyone who actually understands what freedom is.

Again, at least the Democrats are honest. When a Democrat wants more money for the feds, he straightforwardly increases taxes (or invents new ones) and takes the political heat for it. When a Republican wants more money for the feds, he leaves taxes where they are--or even cuts them, as witness Baby Bush--and simply spends money the government doesn't have, increasing the deficit and reducing the real value of your wealth every bit as much as a Democrat tax would have, but secretly, with inflation that sneaks invisibly into your bank account and steals the value of your money. Again, the Republicans get lower marks from me in this category than the Democrats.

Ahem! Whose idea was Project Exile? Anyone? Anyone? Whose idea was it to federalize airline security? Anyone? Anyone? How about repeatedly bailing out the major airlines, which amounts to a form of federalization? How about school vouchers, which are a sneaky way of federalizing private schools? How about this execrable "faith-based initiatives" scheme from Baby Bush to federalize churches? How about the War On (some) Drugs, for criminy's sake? No--the Democrats absolutely have no corner on federalization. The Republicans will certainly tell you that they do, but--guess what: the Republicans are politicians. They lie. But I repeat myself.

Here's one that's at least arguable; I'll give you that. My argument, though, would be that both parties want to take away our guns, but the Republicans understand gun owners a little better than Democrats, and realize that it has to be done slowly and gradually if bloodshed is to be avoided. Every government must eventually disarm its citizens if it is to continue to grow; and our government shows no desire to stop growing.

Again, the Republicans are just as offensive at this as the Democrats, although these days they call it "patriotism" rather than "political correctness." Surely you heard John Ashcroft opine that any American who wasn't wholeheartedly behind the administration's tyrannical, imperialist, misbegotten agenda was supporting the terrorists. You can read plenty of Republicans all over the Internet (maybe even some here!) reviling anyone who doesn't "support our troops" in the sense of approving of the mission they were given in Iraq and sending them goodies. It amounts to the same thing.

The government wants us to be happy little sheep and do as we're told. It's in the interest of whoever is in power, because--as I said before--it keeps us voting rather than shooting.

Skidrow, I think we agree more than we disagree, except about the importance of the Declaration of Independence, but Hawkeye already addressed that issue better than I would have been able to.


I wouldn't put it quite this way (I think it can be unnecessarily distracting to think of the people as part of the government, especially today, and I think there are much bigger problems with the Constitution than that), but I think that in the essentials we're in quite close agreement. Witness:


Absolutely! I can certainly blame myself. For most of my politically-mature life, I was a nominal Republican who dutifully went to the polls every election and voted a straight Republican ticket, then went home and forgot about politics until the next election.

One day, if liberty advocates are successful, perhaps the federal government will be small and weak enough for awhile that there will be no reason for a responsible adult to worry about national politics at all; but that's certainly not the case now.

Here I think you think you're disagreeing with me, but I don't think it's quite working out that way. Small-l libertarians have no illusions about winning a Presidential election and hacking huge bloody chunks out of the federal government. Fantasies, yes; illusions, no. We know it's not going to happen. We're not trying to win: in the political arena we're simply trying to make hypocrites who falsely wave the flag and holler about liberty and freedom lose. In the social arena, on the other hand (here, for instance), we're trying to evangelize the hearts and minds of the people and begin to provide some of the fertile ground for the sea change you (quite astutely) say is necessary.

I'm not going to convince anybody to be a libertarian: I'm not smart enough, persuasive enough, ingenious enough, or charismatic enough. But the government will. It's not smart, persuasive, ingenious, or charismatic either, but it is very powerful. When it takes a bead on you, the way it took a bead on me in 1998, it can turn you into a libertarian dang quick.

And hopefully, the next guy here who gets rousted into libertarianism by the federal government will remember reading a few of these discussions, come back here, and save himself a lot of time and effort that I had to put in for myself.

I would tend to agree with you however the fact that the question was never answered in legal terms but rather by force of arms can lead to some disagreement. The fact that, at least in the very early years of our country, the right to secession was taken seriously is evidenced by the way that Congress continually refused to address the issue of slavery. Each time abolishing slavery was brought up in congress the states of the deep south threatened secession and the issue was set aside. The reason that Madison pushed a bill though the House which stated that the Congress did not have the Constitutional authourity was to defuse the issue of slavery and thus the issue of secession. The founders took secession very seriously as a right of the states and it was only after their departure from the arena of American politics that the legitimacy of the right of secession fell into question.




Intellectually and morally I would agree with you. Legally I would not. As I stated earlier, in my view the Declaration of Independence is simply a declaration of rebellion and of why the founding fathers, and Jefferson particularly, felt that they had a right to rebel. Since, as you have agreed, it established no law it isn't and wasn't legally binding on anyone. What it did do, in addition to its declared purpose of informing the government of Great Britain and the majority of the populace of the several American colonies of our intent to sever our relationship, was to define the arguement of what was the proper relationship between government and citizens and set the stage for the debate and discussion that led to the determination of what sort of government our new country would have and laid the basis for the documents that founded it. Unfortunately, too many compromises were required to gain the agreement of the various parties involved to remain true to all of the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence when it came time to actually found the country and organize the government. Each and every flaw in the Constitution can be traced to the points where it strays from the principles outlined in the Declaration. As I'm sure you're well aware, one of the major arguements that almost left the Constitution stillborn was over the the wording of the Declaration in regard to all men being created equal and having the right of liberty and the way in which that principle would be reconciled with continuing the practice of slavery. Unless slavery was left in place, thus violating the promise of the Declaration, the deep south would have refused to ratify the Constitution. Therefore a compromise was reached which simply postponed the inevitable. I believe that we would be a lot better off today if the Declaration was in fact the founding document which formed the basis of our country's government but unfortunately the author and a large number of the Declaration's signatories simply couldn't accept having some of the principles put forth in that document imposed upon themselves.

Yes, I have a copy of the Federalist Papers, along with all the other pertinent documents, but I thank you for your concern.

Quote:

"At least the Democrats are honest about their intentions, which can't be said for the Republicans. The Republicans campaign on a platform of smaller government, but in fact produce bigger government. Therefore, in this particular event I score the Republicans lower than the Democrats."

The Democrats are open about big government being the solution to all our social problems, but they are not honest about their goals of a socialist America and not honest concerning their desire to see America diminished as a world power.

Quote:

"That might have worked before 9/11 gave the Republicans an opportunity to show their true anti-freedom colors without taking too much popular heat for it. Since 9/11, I think the Republicans are going to have a lot tougher job pawning that particular lie off on anyone who actually understands what freedom is."

It is unrealistic to think we could continue "business as usual" after 9/11. The public demanded something be done, and I guarantee the Republican answer is much less intrusive on our freedom than a Democratic answer would have been. The Dems would have restricted private ownership of firearms even more than it is now. They would have rstricted ammo sales, reloading component sales, optics, you name it. On what do I base this assertation? Look at the draconian gun laws already in existence in the most democratic/liberal states.

Quote:

"Again, at least the Democrats are honest. When a Democrat wants more money for the feds, he straightforwardly increases taxes (or invents new ones) and takes the political heat for it. When a Republican wants more money for the feds, he leaves taxes where they are--or even cuts them, as witness Baby Bush--and simply spends money the government doesn't have, increasing the deficit and reducing the real value of your wealth every bit as much as a Democrat tax would have, but secretly, with inflation that sneaks invisibly into your bank account and steals the value of your money. Again, the Republicans get lower marks from me in this category than the Democrats."

Yes, the dems sometimes ask for more tax money, but they are also are the worst at pork barrel spending. Sadly, the Republicans are catching up in spending. When the dems want more tax revenue, they raise taxes. When the Republicans want more tax money, they cut taxes to stimulate the economy, increasing growth and thus tax revenue. If we were undertaxed, then raising taxes would indeed increase revenue. However, we are overtaxed to the point of it being a drain on our economy, and as such tax cuts stimulate economic growth.

Further, the increasing national debt isn't a big issue right now. Inflation is staying very low. We have a different dynamic right now that what we've seen in the past. As the economy recovers--and it is already on it's way--tax revenue will increase due to growth, and the deficit will be reduced. the most important thing is to get the economy well into it's upswing, even at the expense of a temporary increase in the national debt.


Quote:

"Ahem! Whose idea was Project Exile? Anyone? Anyone? Whose idea was it to federalize airline security? Anyone? Anyone? How about repeatedly bailing out the major airlines, which amounts to a form of federalization? How about school vouchers, which are a sneaky way of federalizing private schools? How about this execrable "faith-based initiatives" scheme from Baby Bush to federalize churches? How about the War On (some) Drugs, for criminy's sake? No--the Democrats absolutely have no corner on federalization. The Republicans will certainly tell you that they do, but--guess what: the Republicans are politicians. They lie. But I repeat myself."

I think you are seeing small things in their most extreme possible form. There are some things the federal government can do well, and providing airport security is not an unreasonable task for the government. The private sector wasn't doing the job. I would have preferred to keep airline security private, but with more stringent standards. Actually, I would have preferred allowing pasengers with CHLs to carry on airline flights.

Repeatedly bailing out the airlines--though not a policy I agree with--is not a form of federalization. Our economy is hugely dependent upon airline travel. Bailing them out is simply an effort to keep the economy going. It is not a good decision, as the free-market would have regulated itself soon enough.

Faith based initiatives are also not an attept at federalization, neither are school vouchers. They are efforts to reduce government mandates and increase prive choice. No doubt the dems would sieze upon the opportunity to federalize these programs once they are in power again.

Quote:

"Again, the Republicans are just as offensive at this as the Democrats, although these days they call it "patriotism" rather than "political correctness." Surely you heard John Ashcroft opine that any American who wasn't wholeheartedly behind the administration's tyrannical, imperialist, misbegotten agenda was supporting the terrorists. You can read plenty of Republicans all over the Internet (maybe even some here!) reviling anyone who doesn't "support our troops" in the sense of approving of the mission they were given in Iraq and sending them goodies. It amounts to the same thing."

PC is not the same as patriotism. Patriotism has existed for many years, and it is the natural pride that people have for their own country. It is an outgrowth of ethnocentrism, but it is based more in ideals than in ethnicicity (sp?). PC is thought control. It is a desperate attempt for the liberals to get their ideals to become reality. They know liberalism (not classic liberalism, but liberalism as it is understood in the US today) cannot withstand the scrutiny of logic, so they must control how people think to keep them from asking the wrong questions.


Even though were are debating this issue, my goal is similar to what I assume yours to be--a great increase in personal freedom and a reduction in government at all levels. However, I my short 43 years of existence, I have never seen cynics (and there is much to be cynical about in politics) or the Libertarian party make any positive contribution toward those goals. The cynics just sit around and bitch. The Libertarian party--though my heart is with them--can't seem to figure out they will never have any power as a separate entity.

So sadly, I must pursue my goals without Libertarians or cynics. Not having the cynics is actually a positive thing. I just wish they'd choose to be part of the solution instead of a non-player. I think "skeptical optimism" is a much more effective way to conduct one's life. However, not having the Libertarians on board is a loss. So I will incrementally attempt to get the message out via the conservative Republican movement--a method I have seen work.

Blaine

RH,

I think your points are good. However, the role of the federal government has been a hotly debated topic since the beginning of the Union. Many interpretations existed, and we have evidence of opinions--presidents, congress, the supreme court--hitting both sides of the pendulum. One's view of the legality of the South's secession will depend on how one views the state of the union. Regardless, the Union could have been preserved without war had both sides conducted themselves more honorably.

What is most troubling, is--even with the formation of a limited government controled by the people--is how people have the government grow and assume so much control .

Blaine

I don't know that we disagree about the importance of the Declaration of Independence, we just see it from different perspectives. While I don't agree that it was the document that this country was founded on it was the catalyst for everything which followed. Had there been no Declaration there would most likely have been no rebellion and had there been no rebellion there would have been no United States of America. The Declaration was extremely important in that in addition to justifying the rebellion it defined the spirit, if not the exact terms, upon which this country was founded. It simply wasn't a legally binding document as was Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution. Without being legally binding on anyone it could be ignored and later, especially during the writting of the Constitution, it was.











Nope. Just stating what I think. To expand a bit, I think that we are our own worst enemy since rather than tolerating slight differences and uniting in a real effort to regain the control that we have allowed to slip away from us we would rather slit each others throats over minor points of difference and continue to let the world as we know it go to hell in a hand basket. Rather than simply supporting liberty we would prefer to support one or another of the various political parties even though most of us are not completely happy with most of them. We do this because we are so afraid of losing elections, power etc. that we would rather support a certain amount of party positions that we don't agree with rather than chance losing power to an opposing party. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? That's what we've been doing for years by continuing to support the so-called major political parties. Political parties largely exist only to promote the candidates who would not be electable on their own merits. As members of a party they can be elected because the public can tell to some degree what they support with out knowing very much about the candidates themselves by knowing which party they belong to. These marginal candidates also can depend on financial backing from the party that they are affiliated with since that party would rather spend money on the campaign of an unknown marginal candidate than loose the contested office to a member of another party and they can depend on getting the votes of those who support their political party for the same reason. If they had to win elections totally on their own abilty and merit with no backing from any political party or machine probably only about 20% of the politicians presently holding office would be able to win an election. The current political system in the United States simply proves that in addition to cream scum also rises. The political party system sucks and reaffirms that Pogo was right.

They sure were back when they were in power. Remember Hillary! and her national health care plan? The Democrats didn't exactly say, "Look, vote for our new socialist plan," but I never heard a single Democrat deny that it was socialist. I only heard two major groups of defenses from Democrats--they were either in the don't-deny-but-change-the-subject category ("But we have to have it--our old people are dying!") or the minimize-the-impact category ("Yes, but not very socialist; Canada and the UK are much more socialist than this plan").

And remember when Madeleine Albright tried to defend Clinton's sale of nuclear secrets to the Chicoms by saying that it would be a good thing if America was no longer the world's only nuclear superpower?

No--the Democrats are very clear about what they want. It's the Republicans that holler "Smaller government!" until they get into office and then create entire new Cabinet-level bureaucracies.


Wrong. It's a little startling how fundamentally we disagree on this issue; I'm not used to disagreeing with gun people quite so completely.

I actually agree about the "business as usual" comment, but not the way you intended it. 9/11 was motivated by government, encouraged by government, allowed by government, and covered up by government. Business as usual was exactly what we got when government continued to deal with the situation.

As for public demand, I'm not so sure. I heard a lot of Congressional demand, but not much public demand. Even if you're right, though, the issue of "unalienable rights" comes into the picture. There are powers that the government is flatly not allowed to have, according to the Constitution, even if everybody wants to give it those powers. A number of those powers are among the ones Bush has been using 9/11 hysteria to arrogate to himself.

And you're also wrong here about Democrats being worse than Republicans, for one of two reasons. First, history argues that it's quite likely the Gore response would have been to lob a magazine of Tomahawk missiles into a remote patch of desert somewhere, with hopes of killing a few brown people but as little desert scrub as possible. But even if that's not the case, and they would have used the opportunity to attempt the sort of martial-law crackdown you envision, you're still wrong. Why? Because we wouldn't have let them get away with it. Everybody "knows" that the Democrats are anti-freedom and the Republicans are pro-freedom: therefore, any anti-freedom moves from Democrats are automatically tyranny on a stick, and any anti-freedom moves from Republicans are automatically good-hearted, only temporary, and absolutely necessary. That's how Bush was able to violate more freedoms in three months than Clinton managed in eight years.



Increasing national debt not a big issue? Economy recovering? Temporary increase in the national debt? Like I said, it's amazing how drastically we disagree. I'm not even sure there's enough common ground here for discussion.


Quite the contrary. Airline security was supposed to ensure that nobody got on the airplanes with a blade more than 4" in length. Did anybody get on the airplanes with a blade more than 4" in length? No. Did the private sector do its job? Absolutely. Government, on the other hand, was supposed to ensure that enemies of the US from terrorist countries were not allowed into the country--and when student visas for such people expired, the people were deported. Were such people allowed to enter and stay in the US? Yes. Did the government do its job? Absolutely not. So what was the response? Federalize airline security: kick out the successful private sector and replace it with the unsuccessful federal government.

Not that it matters all that much, because the federal government lays down the requirements for airline security anyway, meaning that security regulations have nothing to do with what actually works, but rather with what polls best. If the feds were to stop bailing out the airlines, make them fully liable to civil suits from their passengers, and get completely out of the airline security business, believe you me the airlines would come up with working security measures. Too intrusive, and nobody flies your airline and you go bankrupt and starve. Too lenient, and somebody takes over your airplane; all the passengers and/or their families sue, and you go bankrupt and starve. There's an appropriate incentive to get it right.


Sigh. I'm not even going to deal with this right now.


What would you call it, then? It's only in an extremely esoteric sense that the government doesn't own the airlines. With all but one of them subject to instantly disappearing on the government's whim if it doesn't come up with bailout money, they'll all do exactly as they're told, just as if they were federalized. Perhaps you can point out the practical difference: I don't see it.


Replace "PC" with John Ashcroft's brand of "patriotism," and "liberal" with "conservative," and you still have a true statement. It's important that people not think about how they were deceived into supporting an imperialistic foreign war of aggression, so when they ask the wrong questions (for example, "Daddy, why did the President lie about those terrible weapons in Iraq? Isn't lying bad?") they must be controlled ("Are you supporting the terrorists?!").


I'm not sure if our goals are similar. I'm pretty sure we define "freedom" fundamentally differently. And if you mean "reduction in government at all levels" the way Republicans seem to mean it--namely "wild, uncontrolled increase in government at all levels"--then I suspect we have different definitions there too.


One more time: third parties don't try to win, they try to make primary parties lose.

Yeah, I remember, prior to 9/11, I used to ALWAYS take my folder with me on board, as I always had it with me everywhere I went. The airport guard would either take out a ruler to measure the blade, or use his or her fingers to measure it (presumably, they had previously identified how many fingers together made four inches). Then they would let me take it, no problem. Now I have to go defenseless, so that if there are terrorists aboard with plans to force the plane into a sky-scraper, I am nearly powerless to do anything about it, assuming they are in possession of some kind of deadly weapon. Yeah, that increases my security a whole lot, thanks. I feel so much safer now that I am defenseless. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Yah--I have managed to stay off all commercial airlines since 9/11. If I have the money and the weather is reliably nice, I fly myself wherever I have to go (and if you ride with me, you're welcome to bring all the knives, guns, bombs, ammunition, etc. it takes to make you feel secure, as long as you don't blow the weight-and-balance limits); otherwise I drive. If I can't fly myself, and I can't drive, then I don't have to go; that's all there is to it.