How Libertarians think

[SniperFire]

History lesson, Congress has no voted for a declaration of war since WWII.

Nobody is claiming such a thing. Up your game.

By saying a declaration and authorization is the same, you are claiming tha

Nope. I said Congress voted to authorize and fund war, which is defacto declaration.

Remember, the Constitution does not say how such a declaration needs to be worded.

I'm really not sure if I can dumb this down for you any further.

 

[Dragon]

A declaration of war means that a war is already occurring...not that the USA can go willy nilly and bomb places that have not bombed us...

Wasn't true in the War of 1812. Wasn't really true in the Mexican War, either, although it was made to look that way. Definitely wasn't true in the Spanish-American War.

 

[Dragon]

I love the logic here. Because we have been waging illegal wars since 1941, it must me OK.

That isn't the logic here, and we have not been waging illegal wars since 1941.

The logic here is that there is no requirement that a declaration of war be called a declaration of war. As long as Congress says we can go kick butt, the Constitution is satisfied. Now, that's not to say there have been no illegal wars, 'cause there have been a few times when Congress didn't give permission and we kicked butt anyway. But any authorization of force by Congress is a declaration of war. That's a fact.

 

[Liberty]

I love the logic here. Because we have been waging illegal wars since 1941, it must me OK.

That isn't the logic here, and we have not been waging illegal wars since 1941.

The logic here is that there is no requirement that a declaration of war be called a declaration of war. As long as Congress says we can go kick butt, the Constitution is satisfied. Now, that's not to say there have been no illegal wars, 'cause there have been a few times when Congress didn't give permission and we kicked butt anyway. But any authorization of force by Congress is a declaration of war. That's a fact.

there is no requirement for a declaration of war to be changed to anything BUT a declaration of war, either. Therefore, they are different, the difference is outlined in post #17.

 

[ThinkCritically]

DECLARING means to proclaim that something is happening. AUTHORIZING means giving the OK to preemptive action.

That is your opinion, and it is rhetorical.

You hit the nail on the head here. It is rhetorical BS. Thats how special interest groups get around illegal wars, they authorize them instead of Declaring them.

This stuff goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson when he first used presidential non congressionally approved military action to kill off the Natives for there land and resources. Sound familiar? (cough cough...oil)

You probably applaud the trail of tears though, if you lived back then you probably would have said something to this affect....and i quote...."they were due for a serious die back".

Your warmongering ways sicken me....

 

[Dragon]

there is no requirement for a declaration of war to be changed to anything BUT a declaration of war, either. Therefore, they are different

Doesn't follow. You would need for there to BE a requirement that the language NOT be changed, not simply NOT be a requirement that it BE changed.

the difference is outlined in post #17.

As I pointed out above, you are mistaken. We have had declarations of war when the fighting had not yet started, when we were the aggressors for reasons we thought good at the time. Actually, come to think of it, that was true in World War I, too, so add that to the list.

 

[konradv]

While I agree generally with libertarian policies, I think corporatism is nothing but absolutely nonsense. There is nothing wrong with a corporation or any other type of business per se.

Then you do not understand what corporatism is. It has nothing to do with corporations being wrong or bad. It has everything to do with collusion with big govt. for favoritism.

Definitions don't get you a solution. I agree corporation aren't good or bad, rather they're amoral and will take advantage of opportunities to get ahead. One particularly egregious way we allow this is the way we finance elections. We essentially allow "corporate bodies" to bribe our representitves and, as amoral entities, they will. "Lead me not into temptation" works better than pronouncements that we should all vote for better candidates or nobody should vote to transfer wealth to themselves, IMO. Without a basic shift in human nature those calls are worse than nothing because they make some feel good about "doing something", when they've really done nothing at all.

 

[Liberty]

Any connection whatsoever between private business and government is anathema to capitalism.

 

[konradv]

Any connection whatsoever between private business and government is anathema to capitalism.

As long as money is speech, I don't see how we're going to get away from it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Any connection whatsoever between private business and government is anathema to capitalism.

As long as money is speech, I don't see how we're going to get away from it.

By obeying the Constitution and limiting the power of government.

See if businesses realize that no matter how much they spend, they get no benefit from government, then they will stop spending it.

 

[Liberty]

Any connection whatsoever between private business and government is anathema to capitalism.

As long as money is speech, I don't see how we're going to get away from it.

Yeah ya know I am just saying philosophically that you hear lefties all the time whining about how bad capitalism is when they have never even experienced it...I guess the only way would be for a constitutional amendment barring Congressional members from having any association...I know that would get complicated though. Oh well.

 

[konradv]

Any connection whatsoever between private business and government is anathema to capitalism.

As long as money is speech, I don't see how we're going to get away from it.

By obeying the Constitution and limiting the power of government.

See if businesses realize that no matter how much they spend, they get no benefit from government, then they will stop spending it.

How's that going to happen, if legal bribery of our representitives is allowed to happen? Your comment is just an another example of "if everybody does this or that". It's not a solution and is as unlikely to happen as a basic change in human nature.

 

[Dragon]

Any connection whatsoever between private business and government is anathema to capitalism.

Then capitalism is a formal impossibility, has never existed, and never will.

 

[konradv]

Any connection whatsoever between private business and government is anathema to capitalism.

As long as money is speech, I don't see how we're going to get away from it.

Yeah ya know I am just saying philosophically that you hear lefties all the time whining about how bad capitalism is when they have never even experienced it...I guess the only way would be for a constitutional amendment barring Congressional members from having any association...I know that would get complicated though. Oh well.

I agree a constitutional amendment is needed, but just saying "don't do this" wouldn't be as effective as reducing the temptation, IMO. We won't be able to remove the connection, until we realize our representives need to be "connected" to everyone and pay for campaigns out of public funds. Side benefit, despite the added cost we should make out in the long run. Let's say all campaigns, Presidential and Congressional, cost $10 billion. How much more than that do our representitves pay out in pork to their donors by the bills they pass? Much, much more, I'd wager.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Here we go......

 

[konradv]

Here we go......

Then go away. Snarkiness doesn't hide the basic cluelessness of your position. Hopefully your time will never come. We need to learn the lessons of the 20th century and slap down the "isms". Watch out for people that claim they act on principle, it's code for allowing themselves to screw you without thinking about it. Get in the face of the smug bastards. The Bolsheviks and Fascists were smug and claimed to be our saviors, too, because they had principles!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

LMFAO. Oh, ok.

 

[ThinkCritically]

there is no requirement for a declaration of war to be changed to anything BUT a declaration of war, either. Therefore, they are different

Doesn't follow. You would need for there to BE a requirement that the language NOT be changed, not simply NOT be a requirement that it BE changed.

the difference is outlined in post #17.

As I pointed out above, you are mistaken. We have had declarations of war when the fighting had not yet started, when we were the aggressors for reasons we thought good at the time. Actually, come to think of it, that was true in World War I, too, so add that to the list.

You would make an excellent bureaucratic lawyer. I love how well you use semantics as a justification for unconstitutional wars.

 

[Dragon]

there is no requirement for a declaration of war to be changed to anything BUT a declaration of war, either. Therefore, they are different

Doesn't follow. You would need for there to BE a requirement that the language NOT be changed, not simply NOT be a requirement that it BE changed.

the difference is outlined in post #17.

As I pointed out above, you are mistaken. We have had declarations of war when the fighting had not yet started, when we were the aggressors for reasons we thought good at the time. Actually, come to think of it, that was true in World War I, too, so add that to the list.

You would make an excellent bureaucratic lawyer. I love how well you use semantics as a justification for unconstitutional wars.

You, on the other hand, make an excellent internet troll, and a fine candidate for the ignore list.

 

[Paulie]

Looking forward to when old Ron Paul retires and Libertarians return to their normal obscurity and stop humping the legs of Republicans for attention.

Yeah because you could really stand to LOSE voting blocs these days, right?

Who needs the youth, the crossovers, the independents, when you got all the retirees who are going to be around forever to keep voting for the Romneys and the McCains of the party