I'm What Libertarians Call a "Statist". I Don't See Evidence I Should Be Otherwise

[flacaltenn]

Is that all you really want to know Bunky??? Then I get a generous pat on the head too?

Reality Based Libertarianism and Other Stuff.: Governor of Puerto Rico Luis Fortuno: The Left Is Afraid of Him and The Right May Not Know What To Do With Him



That isn't the best article for this "libertarian" governor who rescued Puerto Rico. There's better tales of his fantastic achievements cleaning up after DECADES of leftist policy.. Better article at Reason.com
Look it up..

If you're not satisfied seeing libertarian principles at work at the state level.. Try looking at the recent history of Costa Rica.. Evidently those folks are smarter than American party animal who keep voting dee and dum...

And WHY are you so damn cloudy on Libertarianism when you posted a thread a year ago throwing your valuable support behind Ron Paul? Are you just toying with us -- or do you have principles?

Okay so a country with a population less than half the size of NY. That's a little different. But I have to give you real cred! This is the first time I've seen a Libertarian come up with something real and tangible. Certainly a far cry superior to the blather of the oddballs and whackjobs (same thing) who can never even make a feeble attempt to justify their position.

So look, I'm not saying that certaibn Libertarian principles aren't great. They are. But for example, would I want to live in a USA with no EPA? trust Rick Perry to make sure regs on the Big Oil companies who bought him his office are safe? I don't think so.

That was the idea behind the union and that is what most Libertarians I know are against the EPA for exactly the reason I stated (on the previous page) because it is not an authority which is granted to the federal government in the Constitution. If we required strict adherence to the Constitution then you would find that things that are absolutely necessary would exist. Am I against the EPA? In practice? Yes. In theory? No.

Mike

Those are all good reasons..

I'm simply against the EPA because it warps science continuously to suit the latest political junta in charge. You can legislate enviro crap all you want under the excuse of the Commerce Clause WITHOUT an EPA that believes in junk science and fairy tales. Or that CO2 is a pollutant. Or that forests exceed the latest particulate spec. Or that required MTBE to clean the air whilst it poisioned the groundwater.

 

[Texanmike]

Okay so a country with a population less than half the size of NY. That's a little different. But I have to give you real cred! This is the first time I've seen a Libertarian come up with something real and tangible. Certainly a far cry superior to the blather of the oddballs and whackjobs (same thing) who can never even make a feeble attempt to justify their position.

So look, I'm not saying that certaibn Libertarian principles aren't great. They are. But for example, would I want to live in a USA with no EPA? trust Rick Perry to make sure regs on the Big Oil companies who bought him his office are safe? I don't think so.

That was the idea behind the union and that is what most Libertarians I know are against the EPA for exactly the reason I stated (on the previous page) because it is not an authority which is granted to the federal government in the Constitution. If we required strict adherence to the Constitution then you would find that things that are absolutely necessary would exist. Am I against the EPA? In practice? Yes. In theory? No.

Mike

Those are all good reasons..

I'm simply against the EPA because it warps science continuously to suit the latest political junta in charge. You can legislate enviro crap all you want under the excuse of the Commerce Clause WITHOUT an EPA that believes in junk science and fairy tales. Or that CO2 is a pollutant. Or that forests exceed the latest particulate spec. Or that required MTBE to clean the air whilst it poisioned the groundwater.

The commerce clause does not provide for the EPA.

Mike

 

[flacaltenn]

Agreed about the EPA.. My point was that Congress has always assumed the power to legislate on environmental limits under the Commerce Clause, so the EPA is not really required if CONGRESS wrote real legislation anymore..

Which BTW is the BIGGEST THREAT to out of order regulatory powers. Because all Congress has done on major legislation in the last 2 decades is write HOLLOW, Fill in Blank, Blank Check type bills and leaves it to a newly created or larger bureaucracy to actually determine the law.. When oversight is as bad as it is -- this is not endurable. You STOP IT by slashing the bureaucracies and FORCE Congress to understand the laws that it drafts...

 

[BlindBoo]

It is amusing to see some who use the new buzz word 'statist' also loudly proclaim their love of our nation. 'Life by slogan' requires new "ANTIs" every decade or so.*


*Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? Drunken Joe M.

I first heard the term "Statist" back in the early 80's. Referring to those who seek to continue with the "Status Quo". Those who embrace the two-party circus we call our politcal system.

 

[Borillar]

My advice to you is quit making these threads about libertarians, because you don't have the first fucking clue what we're really about.

Can you enlighten us then? What are libertarians all about? What regulations do libertarians want? Where is the dividing lines between anarchy / libertarianism / big bad gov't statism?

 

[dblack]

It is amusing to see some who use the new buzz word 'statist' also loudly proclaim their love of our nation. 'Life by slogan' requires new "ANTIs" every decade or so.*


*Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? Drunken Joe M.

I first heard the term "Statist" back in the early 80's. Referring to those who seek to continue with the "Status Quo". Those who embrace the two-party circus we call our politcal system.

I recall that usage. Now it applies more to people who see compulsory state government as the 'be-all-end-all' of human society. They view it in much the same way people in the middle-ages viewed the church - as the default authority on all decisions. Statists might complain about government, but they never entertain serious questions about the role of the state.

 

[dblack]

My advice to you is quit making these threads about libertarians, because you don't have the first fucking clue what we're really about.

Can you enlighten us then? What are libertarians all about? What regulations do libertarians want? Where is the dividing lines between anarchy / libertarianism / big bad gov't statism?

Libertarians want government that protects our rights and, as much as possible, is limited to that purpose. We don't want government to assume the role of caretaker or moral advisor. We want a government that makes it possible for us all to live together and pursue our own values and desires, rather than one that tells us what those values and desires should be.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I'm What Libertarians Call a "Statist". I Don't See Evidence I Should Be Otherwise

Then you clearly have not watched Government in Action for the Last century or so. Government is Horribly Inefficient and Corrupt in nearly Everything it does. What More evidence do you need that relying Heavily on the State to Deal with our Problems is not wise.

I don't claim that our government is competent or without fault. But I've lived all over the world - including in countries with weak central governments and one country where their Constitution makes the power of the states override the power of the federal government (if that's what you want, just head South of the border!).
For all our faults, I love the United States the best.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Is that all you really want to know Bunky??? Then I get a generous pat on the head too?

Reality Based Libertarianism and Other Stuff.: Governor of Puerto Rico Luis Fortuno: The Left Is Afraid of Him and The Right May Not Know What To Do With Him



That isn't the best article for this "libertarian" governor who rescued Puerto Rico. There's better tales of his fantastic achievements cleaning up after DECADES of leftist policy.. Better article at Reason.com
Look it up..

If you're not satisfied seeing libertarian principles at work at the state level.. Try looking at the recent history of Costa Rica.. Evidently those folks are smarter than American party animal who keep voting dee and dum...

And WHY are you so damn cloudy on Libertarianism when you posted a thread a year ago throwing your valuable support behind Ron Paul? Are you just toying with us -- or do you have principles?

Okay so a country with a population less than half the size of NY. That's a little different. But I have to give you real cred! This is the first time I've seen a Libertarian come up with something real and tangible. Certainly a far cry superior to the blather of the oddballs and whackjobs (same thing) who can never even make a feeble attempt to justify their position.

So look, I'm not saying that certaibn Libertarian principles aren't great. They are. But for example, would I want to live in a USA with no EPA? trust Rick Perry to make sure regs on the Big Oil companies who bought him his office are safe? I don't think so.

That was the idea behind the union and that is what most Libertarians I know are against the EPA for exactly the reason I stated (on the previous page) because it is not an authority which is granted to the federal government in the Constitution. If we required strict adherence to the Constitution then you would find that things that are absolutely necessary would exist. Am I against the EPA? In practice? Yes. In theory? No.

Mike

Dude. Your posts are reasonable and intelligent. I appreciate the refreshing change they offer and please understand that even if I disagree with certain points, that doesn't mean I don't respect your views.
So the EPA is not authorized by the Constitution. Neither is NASA. Nor the CIA. Nor the VA. But they were all legally presented to and gained approval by Congress - which IS in our Constituion. I mean, if we're going STRICTLY by the USC, anyone owning a gun is required to be part of a well-regulated militia. Some level of interpretation has been necessary since the very beginning.

If you want an example of federalism (and largely Libertarian policies) look no further than Switzerland. I'd say they are doing ok.

As for your comment about the size of the US vs the size of Libertarian states... list for me the number of countries in the history of the world that have exceeded 100 million. I would bet the list is about 11. What level of freedom do the other 10 countries have? Not much. I am of the opinion that it is a mistake to try to govern 300 million people from one central location. I have no problem with the federation or union of states with the understanding that we won't levy taxes against one another, that we will operate under one common currency and even that we establish things like the EPA but I don't believe that 300 million people can peacefully coexist. We can see this in the division on the issues across the country. I don't think we need uniform drug laws, marriage laws or even some kind of "universal" healthcare system. That last one is not a specific slight against the ACA but against the idea that any one system serves 300 million people across 50 different geographic areas.

In a true Libertarian system California and Texas would be free to have completely separate lifestyles. Legalize or criminalize any substances you desire, marry or decline marriage to anyone you like. I'm sure that those two, as well as the other 48 states, would come up with some other common desires... and EPA for example and probably some sort of aviation regulation among other things. I see no reason that some sort of FDA wouldn't be created but I doubt it would have the ability to bust in with guns because somebody was selling raw milk.

One of the things that gets lost (mostly due to misrepresentation) is that Libertarians do recognize the right of societies to set standards. They do not deny that. The problem most Libertarians I know have with the current system is that somebody in Florida is trying to influence the day to day lifestyle of somebody in Maine or Montana. What sense does that make?

Why not have 50 states that are competing for both business and residents on their own terms?

Mike

Switzerland. Who doesn't love Switzerland! It is indeed a very cool country, athough a tad expernsive. I haven't been there in years (I used to live in Autria and track over) but from what I remember it doesn't seem very Libertarian to me. If I recall correctly, college is free (except maybe a couple of them), their health care is practically the blueprint of ObamaCare, their version of the EPA would make ours look mild, the government is pretty close to ours and and they have a ton of very cool, national social programs. I'm also pretty sure the Fed trumps the States (I forget wth they're called but they're basically states) in virtually every area of law.

Seperate laws for states: The problem with for example, seperate marriage laws is obvious. Joan and Jenny get married in California. Then Joan get's transferred to Alabama. It might as well be a different country. ABC Corp has office in ten states. That's gonna be a pain! And so on.

I would actually do the OPPOSITE of the Libertarian idea. In addition to eliminating a couple dozen Fed agencies, I would eliminate virtually state agencies that had a duplicate function to a Fed agency. Then replace them with local, Fed offices. Much cheaper and more efficient. Also much more business friendly. I own a business here in Vegas. So I have to deal with all Fed laws on employment, OSHA etc... AND all NV laws on all the same. We just opened an office in the Bay Area. Guess what? California is about the most business UNfriendly place in the country. Friggin tons of new BS I have to wade through. Inefficient. Costly. Confusing. The business I own is a legal recruiting firm. (Headhunters). One specific area of law that employs thousands of $600+ / hour attorneys all over the country is called SALT. State and Local Tax. What's that tell you? Imagine if the ONLY code was federal? Just a thought.

 

[Texanmike]

Okay so a country with a population less than half the size of NY. That's a little different. But I have to give you real cred! This is the first time I've seen a Libertarian come up with something real and tangible. Certainly a far cry superior to the blather of the oddballs and whackjobs (same thing) who can never even make a feeble attempt to justify their position.

So look, I'm not saying that certaibn Libertarian principles aren't great. They are. But for example, would I want to live in a USA with no EPA? trust Rick Perry to make sure regs on the Big Oil companies who bought him his office are safe? I don't think so.

That was the idea behind the union and that is what most Libertarians I know are against the EPA for exactly the reason I stated (on the previous page) because it is not an authority which is granted to the federal government in the Constitution. If we required strict adherence to the Constitution then you would find that things that are absolutely necessary would exist. Am I against the EPA? In practice? Yes. In theory? No.

Mike

Dude. Your posts are reasonable and intelligent. I appreciate the refreshing change they offer and please understand that even if I disagree with certain points, that doesn't mean I don't respect your views.
So the EPA is not authorized by the Constitution. Neither is NASA. Nor the CIA. Nor the VA. But they were all legally presented to and gained approval by Congress - which IS in our Constituion. I mean, if we're going STRICTLY by the USC, anyone owning a gun is required to be part of a well-regulated militia. Some level of interpretation has been necessary since the very beginning.

I will try to separate the response. And thank you for the kind words. If someone discusses things with me long enough they will realize that I would much rather be civil and discuss but I can pull the gloves off and go rounds if that is how someone chooses to engage me.

First I will deal with the EPA/NASA etc. None (including the CIA) are Constitutional. The federal government was never granted the authority by the states to engage in any of those practices. We can go through that (I've been there before, a thousand times it seems) if you would like but it needs to be a separate post, it is long. Congress has the authority to tax for 18 reasons and 18 reasons alone. For anything else they must amend the Constitution. Again, I will go through it if you are curious but it needs to be a separate post.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That does not require someone to be in a militia to own a fire arm. It says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Change the subjects of the statement and tell me what this sentence means:

"Reading, being necessary to the education of history, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed."

Does that mean that people must be studying history to own or read a book? Of course not. That tells us the reason books are so important. Much like the 2nd amendment tells us why guns are so important.

If you want an example of federalism (and largely Libertarian policies) look no further than Switzerland. I'd say they are doing ok.

As for your comment about the size of the US vs the size of Libertarian states... list for me the number of countries in the history of the world that have exceeded 100 million. I would bet the list is about 11. What level of freedom do the other 10 countries have? Not much. I am of the opinion that it is a mistake to try to govern 300 million people from one central location. I have no problem with the federation or union of states with the understanding that we won't levy taxes against one another, that we will operate under one common currency and even that we establish things like the EPA but I don't believe that 300 million people can peacefully coexist. We can see this in the division on the issues across the country. I don't think we need uniform drug laws, marriage laws or even some kind of "universal" healthcare system. That last one is not a specific slight against the ACA but against the idea that any one system serves 300 million people across 50 different geographic areas.

In a true Libertarian system California and Texas would be free to have completely separate lifestyles. Legalize or criminalize any substances you desire, marry or decline marriage to anyone you like. I'm sure that those two, as well as the other 48 states, would come up with some other common desires... and EPA for example and probably some sort of aviation regulation among other things. I see no reason that some sort of FDA wouldn't be created but I doubt it would have the ability to bust in with guns because somebody was selling raw milk.

One of the things that gets lost (mostly due to misrepresentation) is that Libertarians do recognize the right of societies to set standards. They do not deny that. The problem most Libertarians I know have with the current system is that somebody in Florida is trying to influence the day to day lifestyle of somebody in Maine or Montana. What sense does that make?

Why not have 50 states that are competing for both business and residents on their own terms?

Mike

Switzerland. Who doesn't love Switzerland! It is indeed a very cool country, athough a tad expernsive. I haven't been there in years (I used to live in Autria and track over) but from what I remember it doesn't seem very Libertarian to me. If I recall correctly, college is free (except maybe a couple of them), their health care is practically the blueprint of ObamaCare, their version of the EPA would make ours look mild, the government is pretty close to ours and and they have a ton of very cool, national social programs. I'm also pretty sure the Fed trumps the States (I forget wth they're called but they're basically states) in virtually every area of law.
[/quote]
The construction of Switzerland is slightly different because they have a pure democracy. Cantons (IIRC) do have absolute authority over the central government though.

Seperate laws for states: The problem with for example, seperate marriage laws is obvious. Joan and Jenny get married in California. Then Joan get's transferred to Alabama. It might as well be a different country. ABC Corp has office in ten states. That's gonna be a pain! And so on.

So if you marry your first cousin in Maine (its legal there) is your marriage legal in California? It depends on California. Certain states have reciprocity agreements with CHLs why not marriages. Why should sexual orientation be any different?

I would actually do the OPPOSITE of the Libertarian idea. In addition to eliminating a couple dozen Fed agencies, I would eliminate virtually state agencies that had a duplicate function to a Fed agency. Then replace them with local, Fed offices. Much cheaper and more efficient. Also much more business friendly. I own a business here in Vegas. So I have to deal with all Fed laws on employment, OSHA etc... AND all NV laws on all the same. We just opened an office in the Bay Area. Guess what? California is about the most business UNfriendly place in the country. Friggin tons of new BS I have to wade through. Inefficient. Costly. Confusing. The business I own is a legal recruiting firm. (Headhunters). One specific area of law that employs thousands of $600+ / hour attorneys all over the country is called SALT. State and Local Tax. What's that tell you? Imagine if the ONLY code was federal? Just a thought.

Actually this debate was had multiple times at the convention of Annapolis (which led to the Constitution) as well as at the Constitutional and ratification Convention. I can't remember exactly the quote presented by Henry but it was something to the effect that a Banker in NY cannot possibly know the needs of a farmer in Virginia. I'll look it up if you need the reference, I've got it marked in a book somewhere.

If the states want to give regulatory authority to the federal government then it needs to be a Constitutional amendment. They did that in a few instances in the Constitution. First would be the coining of money. They ceded this to the federal government in the Constitution. Another example would be the commerce clause. Despite its abuses (and they are man, again a topic for another thread) the only thing the states gave up was the authority to tax one another, levy tariffs on one another and start trade wars with one another. They did that in the Constitution. Another example would be the authority to make treaties. Between 1780 and 1789 several states were starting to establish trade agreements and treaties with foreign states. Madison (of all people, one of my least favorite founders) recognized the danger (and Hamilton, the threat it posed to the monetary system) and prohibited states from making treaties with foreign countries.

As for your business... I want it that way. Get rid of the federal regulations period. Your compliance costs must be outrageous. Let the states compete for the right to host your commerce. Let the free market work. But lets take it one step further. If you (and a super-majority of states) want the federal government to take over or oversee a process or agency then you need an amendment. I know its not an economics issue but look at a hot button topic like abortion. Why should 50% of the population be unhappy with a law. Seriously, abortion is almost exactly 50/50 in this country. If that is the case then let the states do what they do... let them handle it and if you can get 2/3 of the states to come to a decision then let them grant that authority to the federal government.

I think we're going to have some interesting discussions.

Mike