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

I can accept that. However, I submit to you sir that you sir are a power monger. Your stated desire is unfettered liberty. In order to to effectively enjoy unfettered liberty you must have the power to persue your liberty without interference. Therefore you must have power to maintain liberty. Ergo, you sir are a power monger.



Not necessarily true. The best defense is a good offense. Trite but true. The most effective, and the least popular, defense is the preemptive strike. It is superior to all others since all the distruction of war takes place on someone else's property, it comes as a surprise to the strikee who, at least in theory won't be prepared for it, it is successful more often than not, and when its over you don't have to go about the business of rebuilding. You can simply bury your dead, who would have died on your dirt anyway had you waited for the agressor to come to you, and go on with your business. But strategy and tactics is another subject for another day.

Sort of true. We may run into trouble over the phrase "unfettered liberty." I'm not completely sure what you mean by it, but it sounds like you mean "the capability to do whatever you wish, whenever you wish, for whatever reason you wish." That's not what a libertarian means by liberty. In the libertarian view, the liberty of one individual is always "fettered" by the liberty of the individuals around him. I can only justly exercise my own liberty as long as it does not decrease the liberty of my neighbors. But, of course, as you point out, I must have the power to ensure that my neighbors only exercise their liberty so as not to decrease mine. That's what the NAP is all about.


This is arguable; but in any case it is not available as an option to the just libertarian.

In real life, though, its unavailability turns out not to be much of a handicap. The NAP places a libertarian under no specific obligation to match force to force; theoretically, mere trespassing could justly be met with a lethal response if there were reason to believe the trespasser had lethal intent. A libertarian would want to be pretty sure that a court would vindicate such action, though, before he took it, because he might well find himself before one in order to forestall the family and friends and townspeople of the late trespasser from applying what they saw as their own retaliatory force.

Barak, do you intend to reply to my last post, or don't you think I've made a valid point?



In any event, both the first and second definitions in my edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language are consistant with my expressed understanding of the authentic meaning of the word conservatism. The first definition they provide relates simply to that disposition which prefers to maintain the traditional order, and this is perfectly consistant with what I have said here, if not all-encompassing. The second definition goes further, however, in support of my expressed understanding on the matter: Reaction, being the natural human response to the occurance of something which one opposes (in this case, "sudden change in the established order," and "government activism"), is also implied here. Reaction means to take action designed to restore the status quo once deviated from by radicals. There is support, also, for this in the aforementioned dictionary, as one of the definitions of the word reaction is "opposition to liberalism."



So, it seems that the authentic meaning of the word conservatism has not changed at all, despite the heroic efforts on the part of the popular media; that is assuming you accept the authority of the American Heritage Dictionary to provide us with the authentic meaning of American-English words.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the results of Frank Buchman's Moral Re-Armament movement.

What you are advocating is that the government attempt to alleviate the degree of moral turpitude which, as you see things, permeates society today. In essence, you would have the government declare war on immorality. What makes you think that the government would be any more successful in that than it has has been with the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty? Government doesn't change society, society changes government.

We can discuss this "till the cows come home" and will not agree.
The views of the liberterarians here reflect the reasons that that view is not valid, and will not become the platform for anyone who can get elected.

Government has a responsibility to enact moral laws, and this nation has in general acknowledged it throughout most of its history. No, not everyone will obey, but that does not negate government's responsibility and authority.

Barak, sorry that you did not get the chapter 12 connection with 13.

The closest party to one with the moral base of our historical positions is the Republican party. I am not wedded to any party, but for not it is the RP for me. I will continue to attempt to have what I believe to be the proper moral standards enacted into law where possible.
Each of you has the same right. So far, at the present time, it appears that the liberals have had the edge.

I hope President Bush can get re-elected, cause a landslide in the Congress, and get federal judges and SC justices in office who will interpret the Constitution, and not make law as they have for many years.

Jerry

The laws regarding victimless immorality are best suited to local government, because then they can reflect local values. When you have the federal government making these kinds of laws and court rulings (either way), you will have all kinds of conflicts with various local values, and most people will be unpleased with government for one reason or other. Some localities will think the laws prudish, while other will think them tyrannical and theocratic, while still others will think that they do not go nearly far enough. This is why the federal government was not given authority to legislate or make court rulings regarding local laws such as these (e.g., abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, drug usage). These things are best dealt with at the local levels of government. This way, if any group finds them intolerable, they can move to a locality with less or more morally restrictive laws.



P.S. I don't include abortion in the category of victimless immorality.

Regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning state laws criminalizing homosexual acts, I find it to be in error. The Constitution does not place this matter in the hands of the Federal Government. To the contrary, it is a state matter. However, in the Fourth Amendment we do find that the people's right to be secure in their persons and houses against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. It doesn't merely state that the Federal Government shall not violate this right, but plainly that it shall not be violated, i.e., by anyone. The definition of unreasonable is also given: that is to say, it is unreasonable unless there is probable cause. This is a legal term of art, which refers to the situation where it is more likely than not, based on the evidence as judged by reasonable men, that a crime has been committed. Not only that; it is deemed unreasonable unless there is a warrant issued by a judge which states exactly what and who is to be searched and/or seized.



This being the case, we would not likely ever see a situation where the police are routinely observing people's bedrooms hoping to discover some sort of perverted activity, as the liberals would like us to imagine. So long as the searches are reasonable, as defined above, I see no great threat to liberty here. The threat is only to homosexual rights, and of those there are none. If a state would like to protect that activity, of course, it should be allowed to do so. On the contrary, however, if a state would like to outlaw it, it has that right too, as homosexual activity has been considered a grave vice by every culture in human history going back to the Old Testament, and local governments have always enjoyed the right to criminalize grave vice.



If a state chooses to outlaw such activity, then search warrants should be issued upon sworn affidavits of probable cause. The reality, however, is that most people are so horrified by the prospect of police searching for this kind of activity (even with probable cause) that they would never tolerate any police department carrying out this kind of search. Whoever was responsible would soon lose his job. In fact, the only way the Bowers v Hardwick case, and the more recent one, ever became criminal issues is by accidental discovery. That is to say, there was a police search underway for something entirely unrelated (for which there was a valid warrant), and seeing the illegal activity taking place in the building, the police arrested the individuals involved.



In any case, this is not a federal issue, and should never have even come to the Supreme Court of the United States. All such issues should be removed by Congress from the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, since they seem unable to restrain themselves from usurping state prerogatives. It would only require a simple majority vote in both houses. The president's signiture is not even required, as Federal Court appellate jurisdiction is placed by the Constitution entirely at the discretion of Congress.

So in other words it isn't results that matter but the fact that an effort was made to do something about the situation. Sounds pretty "feel good" to me. Modern liberalism at its finest.

Geez, you guys. I've never seen such nitpickery sustained for so long. Why don't you all just deem yourselves libertarian conservatives and call it good?

Dave, you are very close to the truth there. Authentic American conservatism is part libertarian, just not enough libertarian for the pure libertarians. One of the things conservatives wish to conserve, in other words, is personal liberty. One liberty interest, however, that we value and libertarians do not, is local self-government, without big brother telling us what kinds of laws we can and can't have. You could call this an interest in preserving/restoring "states rights." Libertarians do not want this, because they cannot tolerate any state having laws that do not accord with their notion of individual liberty. They give no place to local values being represented in local laws.

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson

Because I'm not nearly libertarian enough for Barak and probably not enough of a conservative for Hawkeye. Then there's Jerry who seems to be so far on the totalitarian left that I could never even acknowledge that his arguments have merit let alone agree with them.

As far as the nitpickery thing goes, English is a very rich and precise language which allows its user to express exactly the meaning that he/she is trying to convey to the listener. Anything less than the exact meaning is useless since it will not accurately portray your meaning and the listener/reader won't know what your meaning is. An example of this is the discussion Hawkeye and I had about property earlier. I'm still not sure that we agree on that one. While he seemed to understand what I was saying, the point that he was trying to make was such a subtle shade of opinion that while I believe we agree in general I'm not certain that I fully understood what he wrote and whether or not we agree in detail.

If what you said didn't express precisely what you meant then what you said wasn't what you wanted to say or was a diliberate attempt to hide your true meaning. Inaccuracy in word and meaning is one of the causes for the mess we're in now concerning our government.

Nit, nit, nit, pick, pick, pick. Nyah nyah nyah.
Hawk, I'll have to say I'm on the Barak side of you regarding local government...I draw the line at local restrictions on civil liberties. The supremacy clause has its uses if it is aimed at discriminatory allocations of freedom.
That's not saying it's a freedom free for all out there. It all boils down to what John Adams said about self government...that could only happen if citizens were moral, capable of self-government at the individual level. Otherwise the Constitution would not be successful. And we're damn near at the breaking point, aren't we?
And Skid, I understand your quibbling the fine points...if I lived in the Evergreen People's Republic with all those cops and their brown stealth cop cars and idiot speed limits and zoning up the wazoo and NIMBY's up every side street, and Lockean "government" -- AND the crazy Bullitt sisters -- I'd want to know exactly what every single good-sounding bite REALLY means.
Libertarianism could work if the Adams schema was in place in everyone's mind, the thought that one might have to account for one's acts before the Big Boss some time in the future. Or at least face oneself at the end of a life hopefully well-lived.
But there are scumbags out there who can only be reached through institutions larger than the individual. Period.
By the way, I had a nice shoot yesterday evening even with the fire smoke making the sight picture dirty.

I am not home, but visiting a friend in Florida, so don't have my copy of the Constitution with me, but from memory I know that you misunderstand the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause merely establishes that when the federal government enacts federal legislation which it is authorized by the Constitution to enact, but which conflicts with state laws, then the federal law is supreme as between them. That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. What I said was that the federal government too often leglislates in areas it has no constitutional authority to legislate in, and that the US Supreme Court rules on state laws that they have no constitutional authorization to rule on. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on the federal legislature and executive, not on the states. Remember, the Federal government's powers are few and defined. This is not the case with the states. There is a strong constitutional presumption that state laws are valid, and they can only be invaldated if they conflict with legitimate federal laws, the scope of which (i.e., fed laws) is very narrow and would rarely have anything to do with state type legislation.

I think you've cogently explained your position. Cogently explaining your position, of course, is a skill that is definitely and frequently required if you intend to employ commonly-used words outside their common usage.

There may be words that I feel strongly enough about that I'm willing to explain what I mean by them every time I use them. "Conservative" is not one of them for me; but if it is for you, then I say vive la difference!

As to the rest of it, I think we're arguing past each other. You care about teleology and I care about pragmatism, but not vice versa (on this issue, anyway). Given that, I'm not sure either of us is going to get much purchase on the other.

Please don't misrepresent us like this. If you wish to be ruled by a state, libertarians want to make sure you have the liberty to make that choice, among many others. We wouldn't call your choice libertarian, but then one of the distinguishing characteristics of libertarians is that the realization of their ideal doesn't require everyone to agree with them--or act as though they did.

We don't believe that we have any right to decide what sort of society you live in; on the other hand, we don't believe you have any right to decide that for us, either. Therefore, we will continue working against the people who wish to rule us, because we do not wish to be ruled. Once we have successfully put those people out of a job, though, we're going to need to do something with them; if you and your fellow "authentic American conservatives" do wish to be ruled, then we can be of use to one another.

Libertarians can't tolerate states or laws, period. At least not in relation to them and their view of personal liberty. They would be much happier with e unum pluribus than e pluribus unum.

Two of the main problems one encounters when trying to deal rationally with libertarians are their enormous egos and their naivete in refusing to acknowledge that their personal liberty would never survive in the real world unless it was compromised to some degree to enable it to be protected by a larger entity than themselves. They think simple belief in and recognition of liberty is enough to sustain it and they seem to think all the choices are their's. Their ego won't allow them to realize that someone else's choice might just compromise their liberty completely. They just don't seem to understand that the world doesn't revolve around them, or anyone else either for that matter. In some respects they're similar to the left in that they want liberty and choice for themselves but have absolutely no respect for the liberty and choices of anyone else since those choices and version of liberity are inherently inferior and certainly should not be binding on a libertarian. They don't see a need for them to support a state or laws since they only see the danger of an authority higher than themselves and none of the benefits that a state can provide. Their answer to a state is that anything a state can do an individual can do better and more efficently while placing no demand on anyone else.

Barak, you are a smart guy, which is why I am surprised that you confuse "being ruled" with local self-government within the framework of a constitutional and representative republic under the rule of law.



Point number two: As a conservative, I would be in favor of conservative state and local government as well. What that means is I would favor little in the way of legislation other that that which rolls back previous leftist legislation, which roll-back I would very much favor. As a conservative I disfavor all collectivist schemes (and other activist and social engineering type legislation), for example, and would dismantle them. The list goes on.



It is foolish to assume that conservatives are only conservative at the federal level. Power, even at the local level, must still be internally checked and balanced, and authentic basic rights still need to be guaranteed, but the means of doing so are not found in the federal government. When it comes to states exercising their time-honored prerogative to outlaw grave vice, a conservative is in favor of not changing that situation by way of U.S. Supreme Court fiat, as the local tradition is deeply rooted in our Judeo-Christian/western culture, and to alter it by force from above will ultimately endanger our liberty, not enhance it



A conservative government at the federal level would not interfere with the natural diversity of laws traditionally encouraged in our nation by our constitution. This was intended, and for good reason. Some states are more likely to outlaw vice than others, and some states do little or nothing in this regard, and this is fine in the eyes of a conservative. We believe that this will result in an equalibrium, where the vast majority will always be able to find the kind of government they prefer at the local level, even if they do not currently hold the majority view in their community. The option of moving, within a system of diverse laws and government, in other words, is an additional check on abusive government, which would not exist if leftists had their way at the federal level.

I used the term "being ruled" to denote a system with a state that arrogates to itself the power to apply initiated force.

If you want a government (or a state, in Nock's terminology--thanks for that, by the way) to initiate force against you, then you're asking to be ruled. If you want a government to initiate force on your behalf against someone else, as you direct, then you're asking to rule another.

If you're not after either of those things, then you're a libertarian. (Surprise!)

Libertarians have laws, or at least we have things that act like laws; we simply don't apply them to anyone who hasn't agreed to submit to them. You might say that we operate a competitive free market in laws. Laws that are reasonable, fair, and just will become very powerful; laws that are stupid will simply fade into obscurity. If a need for a law makes itself felt, people will try to invent it; the version that turns out to be superior will attract the majority of adherents. In different regions, or different neighborhoods, or different interest groups--including your "authentic American conservatives"--completely different sets of laws might evolve.

Ah--but what about the person who chooses to submit to no law at all? Won't that person singlehandedly bring Libertopia crashing down?

Well, no. It may be so long since any of us has seen a good law that we have forgotten this, but laws were originally intended to be win-win propositions. You offer a law your submission, and in return it offers you protection. You submit to a law prohibiting murder, and in return you are in some degree protected from being murdered.

If you submit to no law, then you are protected by no law: you are described by the technical term "outlaw." No home-defense or law-enforcement company will contract to protect the life, liberty, or property of an outlaw; therefore there would be no penalty for killing him and stealing all his belongings, other than that which he himself could provide.

On the other hand, if you felt most comfortable choked by a stifling, suffocating blanket of laws that regulated your every move, and you could afford to pay for such laws to be interpreted and enforced, there'd be nothing to prevent you from living in southern California or New York City or Chicago; you could have people run up on charges for looking at you wrong or chopping oregano improperly (provided you could first persuade them to sign up for such laws).

And if you didn't like either extreme, you could choose any point on the spectrum between them that seemed good to you for yourself--although owing to efficiencies of scale, there'd probably be a small number of standard arrangements on which you could get particularly good deals.

The only thing you wouldn't be able to do in Libertopia is vote somebody else into subjugation to the laws of your choice without his consent. If that capability is important to you, then...well, good luck and may the best man win.

Barak, that's a fine plan, but unfortunately it has no basis in human history, that is to say, it is entirely severed from it. I cannot imagine a course of history where such an arrangement could develop naturally (nor maintain itself), and I am not a believer in man-made utopias. Having never existed, nor anything like it, I tend to think it a highly unlikely proposition. My mind remains open, however.