What are the underlying principles of Modern liberalism?

[Mad Scientist]

You deny that tariffs have a negative effect on foreign trade?

If tariffs have no effect, why NAFTA?

I have accounted for everything

So you say. Do you have the numbers?

I've told you what will be financed by the Federal Government: National Parks, and the Military.

So no paychecks for congress? No CIA or NSA? No SS to protect the president? No Interstate?

Indeed, Why NAFTA?

Yes, I have the numbers: What numbers would you like to know? This is like, the third time I've asked.

"So no paychecks for congress? No CIA or NSA? No SS to protect the president? No Interstate?"

Correct; states would pay their representatives.

I'm confident that the Military could protect the president, and the Federal Government, AND keep the Mexicans and Canadians at bay.

Easy big fella'! Some people have trouble grasping the idea of small government and self reliance and get nervous. It's like heroin withdrawal for them.

You're doing just fine though, carry on!

 

[JBeukema]

Interstate? Why would this be a Federal Concern? States can build their own roads.

The interstate, by definition, is an interstate (federal) matter, not a matter of what each state does with their own roads. Or should roads from different states never meet so interstate travel and commerce is impossible?

 

[JBeukema]

Since there's to be no FBI or any other federal law enforcement agency, I wonder how Samson would react to interstate crimes.
</div>

 

[Mad Scientist]

Why don't you. Here's your list of right wing "values". Notice you couldn't disagree with any.

This thread is about "Underlying Liberal Principles". Notice that you didn't post any.

Try to stay on topic.

Yes I did. A whole bunch. Republicans on this board couldn't disagree with any. They just called names. As usual.

I asked you to start another thread rather than hijack this one and you're so far refused.

And don't worry about the name calling it's just a regional thing you know. Fer instance where I grew up we refered to people like you as "slack jawed, beta phaggots".

 

[Samson]

Interstate? Why would this be a Federal Concern? States can build their own roads.

The interstate, by definition, is an interstate (federal) matter, not a matter of what each state does with their own roads. Or should roads from different states never meet so interstate travel and commerce is impossible?

Oh I see.

Yes we may need to change the names to "State Highway."

'K now?

Indeed, adjacent states would need to cooperate if they want to move goods in and out, or not, across their borders.

I'm sure they could reach a compromise on where to build roads, or not.

 

[Samson]

Since there's to be no FBI or any other federal law enforcement agency, I wonder how Samson would react to interstate crimes.
</div>

I wonder why you simply cannot ask me how I would react?

I suppose there would need to be state police?

Extradition from one state to another?

Do you realize that states already have their own law enforcement agencies...

 

[Mad Scientist]

Since there's to be no FBI or any other federal law enforcement agency, I wonder how Samson would react to interstate crimes. </div>

You mean how would Law Enforcement handle interstate crimes? Prolly how they do it now, one Sheriff calls the other one and they figger out between themselves and the D.A. which state to charge the defendant(s) in.

 

[Samson]

Since there's to be no FBI or any other federal law enforcement agency, I wonder how Samson would react to interstate crimes. </div>

You mean how would Law Enforcement handle interstate crimes? Prolly how they do it now, one Sheriff calls the other one and they figger out between themselves and the D.A. which state to charge the defendant(s) in.

Interestingly, this is pretty much how Samson answered.

 

[JBeukema]

Interstate? Why would this be a Federal Concern? States can build their own roads.

The interstate, by definition, is an interstate (federal) matter, not a matter of what each state does with their own roads. Or should roads from different states never meet so interstate travel and commerce is impossible?

Oh I see.

Yes we may need to change the names to "State Highway."

'K now?

State highways already exist.

Indeed, ajoining states would need to cooperate if they want to move goods in and out, or not.

So we shouldn't be able to provide for the common defense by moving our army around?

I'm sure they could reach a compromise on where to build roads, or not.

And the federal government should leave it to state politics to develop a system designed to get our military forces across the continent?

I also notice that you said nothing about law enforcement agencies to enforce copyrights and patents.

And nothing about immigration and customs.

Or any FDA or CDC... you do realize that interstate commerce- especially in regards to the nation's food supply- is kinda important, right?
youtube
</div>

 

[Samson]

The interstate, by definition, is an interstate (federal) matter, not a matter of what each state does with their own roads. Or should roads from different states never meet so interstate travel and commerce is impossible?

Oh I see.

Yes we may need to change the names to "State Highway."

'K now?

State highways already exist.

Indeed, ajoining states would need to cooperate if they want to move goods in and out, or not.

So we shouldn't be able to provide for the common defense by moving our army around?

I'm sure they could reach a compromise on where to build roads, or not.

And the federal government should leave it to state politics to develop a system designed to get our military forces across the continent?

I also notice that you said nothing about law enforcement agencies to enforce copyrights and patents.

And nothing about immigration and customs.

Or any FDA or CDC... you do realize that interstate commerce- especially in regards to the nation's food supply- is kinda important, right?
youtube
</div>

I never said anything about stopping interstate commerce.

Ok, Ill say something about enforcing US copyrights and patents: Let the state agency do it. Happy now?

Yes, the military would need to work on deploying to minimize their need to travel: I'd suggest setting up posts near Mexico and Canada.

I'll let the military handle immigration and customs, and disease control (germ warfare).

States can set up their own food and drug inspection and quality tolerances.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Oh I see.

Yes we may need to change the names to "State Highway."

'K now?

State highways already exist.

So we shouldn't be able to provide for the common defense by moving our army around?

I'm sure they could reach a compromise on where to build roads, or not.

And the federal government should leave it to state politics to develop a system designed to get our military forces across the continent?

I also notice that you said nothing about law enforcement agencies to enforce copyrights and patents.

And nothing about immigration and customs.

Or any FDA or CDC... you do realize that interstate commerce- especially in regards to the nation's food supply- is kinda important, right?
youtube
</div>

I never said anything about stopping interstate commerce.

Ok, Ill say something about enforcing US copyrights and patents: Let the state agency do it. Happy now?

Yes, the military would need to work on deploying to minimize their need to travel: I'd suggest setting up posts near Mexico and Canada.

I'll let the military handle immigration and customs, and disease control (germ warfare).

States can set up their own food and drug inspection and quality tolerances.

Little problem there with "Posse Comitatus" laws. You could have individual states that border Canada and Mexico enforce Immigration Law. Either with the State National Guard or State Militia maybe?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Id prefer to hear the answer from liberals themselves. I want to see what they say their underlying principles are.

They have no principles.

Just what this board needs. Another republican with no solutions, no game and nothing to say but "Fuck you".




Welcome to the board, Newbie.

 

[JBeukema]

Ok, Ill say something about enforcing US copyrights and patents: Let the state agency do it. Happy now?

So I have to either petition every single state for a patent/copyright or risk someone in the next town over (just across the border) stealing my ideas/product?

And you don't think the resulting loss of profitability in original reserch and scientific/technological advancement will have any ill effects on research on development?

I'll let the military handle immigration and customs

Military as law enforcement... no way anything bad could ever come from that...

States can set up their own food and drug inspection and quality tolerances.

You're don't interact with the real world much, do you?

 

[midcan5]

These debates too often get into silly minutiae that clarifies nada. America is a liberal nation, it started as a liberal nation - and while corporate or big media has too much power over the idea landscape today - we are are still a liberal nation. DADT among other recent acts of the people's government prove that conclusion. What would a conservative nation look like? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Egypt before last week? The only reason liberal is a bad word today is power likes power and liberal means change. Liberalism challenges power. Conservatism worships power. [I should note in all my posts I am referring to American style conservatism since the thirties.] Look only to the constant fight against the New Deal, an act that saved the nation and created the prosperity that has today made the prosperous conservatives. A weird turn of events as Tony Judt analyzes so well.

"For anyone born after 1945, the welfare state and its institutions were not a solution to earlier dilemmas: they were simply the normal conditions of life - and more than a little dull. The baby boomers, entering university in the mid sixties, had only ever known the world of improving life chances, generous medical and educational services, optimistic prospects of a upward social mobility and - perhaps above all - an indefinable but ubiquitous sense of security. The goals of an earlier generation of reformers were no longer of interest to their successors. On the contrary they were increasingly perceived as restrictions upon the self-expression and freedom of the individual." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

There are so many slogans and rhetorical images in the conservative mind, countering them today is nearly impossible. They have become the frame or structure in which a conservative views and understands the world. Intense's post can be the starting point.

[You can't pursue Justice and Equal Outcome without doing disservice to one or the other. To give Freely what is needed or what you can is a Christian Principle. Caring is a Christian Principle. To take by force of Mandate is of Government, whether it is good or bad in part has to do with Consent, Purpose, Measure, Competence, and Effectiveness, I'm sure there is much more to it. Intentions by Itself does not Justify.

Games sometimes are played for the fun of playing, for the development of skill and ability, Equal Outcome effects the desire to play, to achieve. Modern Liberalism looses sight of the excitement of the game itself, too caught up in playing the role of the God it too often denies exists.

Modern Conservatism has more in common with Locke style Locke style Christianity and Classic Liberalism than Modern Liberalism, which does not Value the Individual, but the Collective.

What happened to the Value of Live and let live, Free to disagree, Freedom of Voice in decent, the Right to possess, the Right to decide for ones self? Hive think, in any form, starves Individual Conscience, it may put the Collective in a better light, but that is an illusion, smoke and mirrors, while the herd moves on blindly in one misdirection and then another, as one. You would have all of your Critics silenced rather than effect growth.

You can pursue justice and a fairer life for all. Why the heck not? Most liberals I know are Christians. Government is not a mandate, nice slogan word. Government is our representative power, it can do good or bad, we can only look back to the recent near financial collapse to see a good, even if you disagree. The country is stronger now. Games are for children, one can use the metaphor, but in the real world, life is not Sunday football. Government doesn't deny gawd, the analogy is irrelevant. But if children are starving, I'd like that the ref make the right call and help. Seems the Christian / religious thing to do. If one reads Locke today as a guide, then what happens to pragmatism, what happens to the game, seems kinda locked up. Modern conservatism is not classical liberalism, that's another empty analogy. No classical liberal would impose the many restrictions the right wing conservatives wants to define and impose on women and gays. Remember conservatism is primarily reactionary. Yes, what happened to the right to be free, same thing that always happens, it means whatever you want it to mean. And as a liberal I like that my elected government keeps an eye on things, saves me from having to, and allows a lot more freedom. Yes, what happened to the right to decide for yourself? Tell us, it your side that denies those rights. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html


"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50872-use-this-handy-parable-to-understand-politics.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/50779-end-of-democracy.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/103530-fact-paradox-and-random-musings.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...-be-a-liberal-if-post1936599.html#post1936599

 

[jillian]

Which Interpretation of "General Welfare"? Before the Constitution was Ratified (What they told everyone in order to get them to agree to it), or after it was Ratified, when Hamilton sprung the trap?

irrelevant. they couldn't anticipate what would be in the general welfare 200 years plus down the line.

if they could, they'd have expressly set out what it was.

or you could actually read the 200 years of caselaw on the subject.

From my honest perspective the Case Law is a Chronicle of 200 years of straying further from original intent, one ruling at a time. That aside, that which serves Justice best, without offending, giving proper weight to Principle and relevance, which is at times a matter of educated opinion, is the best we can do, being human. The true Litmus Test? When 75% or better of the Congress or the Country is that strongly opposed to a Decision or Ruling, know that You or I, are on thin ice.

who cares what the "original intent" was. that isn't or at least hasn't until scalia and his extremists, ever been the basis for constittional construction. again, and i've recommended this to you before, read marbury v madison. understand the thought process.

there are different kinds of countries. france operates on a strictly read statute, which they call a code. the only state in this country to operate on such a system is louisiana because they base their law on the french. every other state and the US is based on English common law. the caselaw has EQUAL weight with the statute.,

You can't have an intelligent discussion about the constitution and ignore that. You are too smart for that. And in reading my prior response to you, i apologize if it sounded snarky. But you know this is a pet peeve of mine. I think it disrespects the document that was given us and ignores the reality.

 

[Samson]

State highways already exist.

So we shouldn't be able to provide for the common defense by moving our army around?


And the federal government should leave it to state politics to develop a system designed to get our military forces across the continent?

I also notice that you said nothing about law enforcement agencies to enforce copyrights and patents.

And nothing about immigration and customs.

Or any FDA or CDC... you do realize that interstate commerce- especially in regards to the nation's food supply- is kinda important, right?
youtube
</div>

I never said anything about stopping interstate commerce.

Ok, Ill say something about enforcing US copyrights and patents: Let the state agency do it. Happy now?

Yes, the military would need to work on deploying to minimize their need to travel: I'd suggest setting up posts near Mexico and Canada.

I'll let the military handle immigration and customs, and disease control (germ warfare).

States can set up their own food and drug inspection and quality tolerances.

Little problem there with "Posse Comitatus" laws. You could have individual states that border Canada and Mexico enforce Immigration Law. Either with the State National Guard or State Militia maybe?

Sure, why not.

 

[Samson]

Ok, Ill say something about enforcing US copyrights and patents: Let the state agency do it. Happy now?

So I have to either petition every single state for a patent/copyright or risk someone in the next town over (just across the border) stealing my ideas/product?

And you don't think the resulting loss of profitability in original reserch and scientific/technological advancement will have any ill effects on research on development?

I'll let the military handle immigration and customs

Military as law enforcement... no way anything bad could ever come from that...

States can set up their own food and drug inspection and quality tolerances.

You're don't interact with the real world much, do you?

Meh, you're entitled to an opinion.

You don't think outside the box much, do you?

 

[JBeukema]

History shows that most of your ideas don't end well.

 

[BlindBoo]

Liberty, Freedom, Justice and Tolerance.

That's classical liberalism (of which I am a proud member). Modern Liberalism is more akin to Marxism.

You mean it's what you call the Statist Democrats when they have power? (BTW they are not that much different that the pseudo-conservative statist who were thrown out of power in 2008.) Two sides of the same coin.

 

[BlindBoo]

How to Label Cato

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution — individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law — call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism — the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known — as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom.

"Liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world — the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina tend to be supporters of human rights and free markets — but its meaning has clearly been altered in the contemporary United States.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is — or used to be — the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

About Cato