How Libertarians think

[ThinkCritically]

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.



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.

You are right, that was a low blow calling you a lawyer....peace? I suggest that you don't just take your ball and go home though, by ignoring me. Or is that the approach that you take in life....

 

[Mr.Nick]

Congress: it ain't authorized in the Constitution, don't fucking do it.

Corporatism is the problem, capitalism is the solution.

Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.

You want free health care? Free education? Free pie? Get a Constitutional amendment for it, assclown.

You want to go invade other countries? If it is a truly just proposal then a declaration should be EASY to get. If not, maybe you shouldn't be invading other countries. Derp.

Respect the checks and balances. The executive is supposed to be the weakest branch.

Progressives don't think - they knee-jerk..

They're like robots...

They hate those who question the progressive elite...

Question Nancy "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" Pelosi and you're an idiot to them...

Progressives are either masochists or blatantly retarded..

I'm sure some mean well but they also have the IQ of a potato...

 

[kaz]

Do you believe in the idea of nations?

Yes?

Then you cannot be a radical fringe Libertraian.

Why?

Because ALL governments infringe on your freedoms.

We're not anarchists dumb ass. We want to minimize government, not eliminate it. Here's a clue as to how you know we're not anarchists, we call ourselves libertarians, not anarchists....

 

[kaz]

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

That is your opinion, and it is rhetorical.

The Constitution is based on enumerated powers, and there is no power to attack other countries in the Constitution. It's only defense if the US is being attacked, or is going to be imminently attacked. Congress authorizing an attack doesn't put in the Constitution that's the role of our military any more then anything else Congress does with no Constitutional authority.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Congress: it ain't authorized in the Constitution, don't fucking do it.

Corporatism is the problem, capitalism is the solution.

Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.

You want free health care? Free education? Free pie? Get a Constitutional amendment for it, assclown.

You want to go invade other countries? If it is a truly just proposal then a declaration should be EASY to get. If not, maybe you shouldn't be invading other countries. Derp.

Respect the checks and balances. The executive is supposed to be the weakest branch.

No I only oppose those selling lemonade, oh yeah and government telling private businesses what they can and cant sell - like happy meal toys.

Remember, a good time and a fun Sunday with the kids at Chucky-Cheese is bad...

Obey government...

 

[Avorysuds]

"Libertarian" and think don't belong in the same sentence.

Good news Rabbit, soon enough it's very possible Libertarians and Republican won't be used in the same sentence. The only exception will be when people talk about when the Republican party alienated the conservative part of their voter base by shifting dramatically progressive in policy, costing them 10% of their voter base and elections for many years to come.

I think it's awesome to watch you implode, but that’s the inevitable side effect to becoming "the other progressive party."

 

[Dragon]

The Constitution is based on enumerated powers, and there is no power to attack other countries in the Constitution.

Regrettably, you're mistaken. The power to declare war is exactly that.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution is based on enumerated powers, and there is no power to attack other countries in the Constitution.

Regrettably, you're mistaken. The power to declare war is exactly that.

Congress declaring war isn't a power, it's a process. Defense of the United States is a power. Congress declaring war to defend the people is a Constitutional process to a Constitutional end. Congress declaring war to attack Iraq to secure oil supplies is a Constitutional process to an Unconstitutional end. The Unconstitutional end means that it's Unconstitutional for Congress to do regardless of the Constitutional process being followed. It's like Congress voting to pass bills for regulating intrastate commerce. There is no Constitutional authority for them to do that. Simply voting according to Constitutional rules doesn't mean they can do whatever they want regardless of whether there is a Constitutional authority for them to do it. It's still Unconstitutional for them to regulate Intrastate commerce even if they follow Constitutional voting processes.

 

[SniperFire]

Congress declaring war to attack Iraq to secure oil supplies is a Constitutional process to an Unconstitutional end. .

What about to honor foreign treaties?

 

[SniperFire]

Do you believe in the idea of nations?

Yes?

Then you cannot be a radical fringe Libertraian.

Why?

Because ALL governments infringe on your freedoms.

We're not anarchists dumb ass. We want to minimize government, not eliminate it. Here's a clue as to how you know we're not anarchists, we call ourselves libertarians, not anarchists....

Would you stop a local majority of people from passing a tax law to support a soup kitchen?

 

[SniperFire]

We're not anarchists dumb ass. We want to minimize government

Would you agree the definition of what would be a minimal government would be in the eye of the public, or would such a determination be the sole providence of some sort of a Libertarian Purism Council?

 

[kaz]

Do you believe in the idea of nations?

Yes?

Then you cannot be a radical fringe Libertraian.

Why?

Because ALL governments infringe on your freedoms.

We're not anarchists dumb ass. We want to minimize government, not eliminate it. Here's a clue as to how you know we're not anarchists, we call ourselves libertarians, not anarchists....

Would you stop a local majority of people from passing a tax law to support a soup kitchen?

If you are asking if I would vote against it, I would. I would also donate money to the soup kitchen. I never give homeless money, but I do buy them meals when I have the time.

If you are asking if soup kitchens are Unconstitutional, they are when they are Federally funded by the 10th amendment. They are not when they are locally funded, which was your question.

 

[kaz]

We're not anarchists dumb ass. We want to minimize government

Would you agree the definition of what would be a minimal government would be in the eye of the public, or would such a determination be the sole providence of some sort of a Libertarian Purism Council?

I am answering your other two questions because you weren't being a dick when you asked those.

 

[kaz]

Congress declaring war to attack Iraq to secure oil supplies is a Constitutional process to an Unconstitutional end. .

What about to honor foreign treaties?

When it's to honor foreign Constitutionally ratified treaties it is Constitutional. The Constitution says ratified treaties can violate the Constitution. This is a basic law question, not really an ideology one.

But no, I don't think we should be entering wars just to satisfy treaties and we shouldn't be signing treaties that commit us to do that.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Do you believe in the idea of nations?

Yes?

Then you cannot be a radical fringe Libertraian.

Why?

Because ALL governments infringe on your freedoms.

We're not anarchists dumb ass. We want to minimize government, not eliminate it. Here's a clue as to how you know we're not anarchists, we call ourselves libertarians, not anarchists....

I don't believe many are capable of understanding true liberalism or "libertarianism."

Actually libertarian shouldn't even be an "ism."

I suppose anarchy is a form of libertarian tho....

Libertarian is any separation (or opposition) from authority/government.

Anarchy is impossible anyways...

"Anarchists" even have a structure - which contradicts the definition of anarchy.

 

[Dragon]

Congress declaring war isn't a power, it's a process.

Regrettably, you're mistaken.

"Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war . . ."

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.

The power to declare war is the power to initiate hostilities. If someone else initiates hostilities, the nation is already at war and Congress does not need to exercise this power (although it may still do so).

Much as I might wish you were right and that our country did not have the power, under its own laws, to start a war, that is not the case. The Constitution is what it is, not what we might wish it to be.

 

[ThinkCritically]

Do you believe in the idea of nations?

Yes?

Then you cannot be a radical fringe Libertraian.

Why?

Because ALL governments infringe on your freedoms.

We're not anarchists dumb ass. We want to minimize government, not eliminate it. Here's a clue as to how you know we're not anarchists, we call ourselves libertarians, not anarchists....

Would you stop a local majority of people from passing a tax law to support a soup kitchen?

If I my answer this one. I live in San Francisco, so when they started trying to ban McDonald's toys from happy meals here in SF, I got a call from a pollster asking me my opinions on the matter. She asked me if I supported the ban, and I said "I would support the ban if it passes, but I would personally vote against it."

We would vote against it because its against our principles for government to infringe upon our menu choices when we go to a food establishment. But we respect the choice of the community if there is majority consensus, just like we honor the law at the federal level once it is passed. The idea is to minimize the effect of majority rule. Majority had it here that they would ban the HMtoys, but it would have sucked even worse if they had banned it on a national scale. Its a win win for the libertarian though because local communities, not federal government, get to govern.

So we would not stop a majority at the local level.

 

[kaz]

Congress declaring war isn't a power, it's a process.

Regrettably, you're mistaken.

"Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war . . ."

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.

The power to declare war is the power to initiate hostilities. If someone else initiates hostilities, the nation is already at war and Congress does not need to exercise this power (although it may still do so).

Much as I might wish you were right and that our country did not have the power, under its own laws, to start a war, that is not the case. The Constitution is what it is, not what we might wish it to be.

You didn't understand what I said. I addressed that. Try actually reading the post before you respond to it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

In this case ‘obeying the Constitution’ would be Citizens United, where as correctly noted, corporate participation in the political process – including campaign funding – is a form of protected speech.

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

Nonsense.

Private business would fail to function if it weren’t for government. Paved roads, clean water, power and utilities services, education and training of the workforce, police, fire, and other emergency services are but a few of the benefits private business realizes, without which they could never flourish.

And yes, regulatory policy also benefits private business, as private business is its own worst enemy.

It’s this type of naïve reactionary extremism exhibited by libertarians which renders their ‘philosophy’ ridiculous.

 

[Oddball]

Nonsense.

Private business would fail to function if it weren’t for government. Paved roads, clean water, power and utilities services, education and training of the workforce, police, fire, and other emergency services are but a few of the benefits private business realizes, without which they could never flourish.

And yes, regulatory policy also benefits private business, as private business is its own worst enemy.

It’s this type of naïve reactionary extremism exhibited by libertarians which renders their ‘philosophy’ ridiculous.

The late Robert Nozick -someone a helluva lot smarter than you think you are- went into great detail how such things could come about without a huge central gubmint.

Seriously, tovarich, take two tabs of get the fuck over yourself and call us in the morning.