What is it that makes the constitution so sacred to you libertarians?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Billy000, Jan 11, 2012.

  1. Billy000
    Online

    Billy000 Democratic Socialist

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,213
    Thanks Received:
    1,251
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +4,340
    While the constitution was a brilliant design of government, it was not designed perfectly. In my opinion, it could not have accounted for how society has evolved over the years.

    It is my sincerest belief that while personal freedom and a free market are important American ideals, they needs limitations. Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that sounds good on paper, but its actual application as a national system would be crazy.

    I'll be the first to admit that the government doesn't always get it right. However, in the interest of public well-being, sometimes even economic growth does need to be limited by government regulation.

    GOVERNMENT REGULATION

    Can you imagine the implications if we did not have government agencies, like the FDA or FAA? The pharmaceutical industry, for instance, would become dangerous. If drug companies were under no authoritative review, what is to stop them from releasing potentially harmful products? Without the FDA, there would be no legal mandate for these food and drug companies to test the safety and effectiveness of their products.
    Self-regulation is a slow process and only works to an extent. There are plenty of things that would slip through the cracks that consumers would not know about. Take the tobacco companies, for instance. There are already additives in cigarettes that make them more addicting. Is it really worth it to have these industries left unchecked? Take a minute and imagine what they could get away with. Imagine what they could do to their products for the sake of more profit.... it's a scary thought.

    TAXATION

    It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.
    If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.
    This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth. And don't get it twisted -I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.
    It isn't just the rich that need to pay taxes, of course. EVERYONE needs to put in their fair share for the sake of the greater good. I have no problem with paying higher taxes, so long as I know that the revenue is intended to make this country better (it doesn't always, I know).

    WELFARE/UNEMPLOYMENT/FOOD STAMPS

    I do understand that there are a lot of government moochers in this country, but that doesn't mean that these programs are unnecesssary and ineffective. Some people do need help when they are unable to stand on their own two feet. Also, it's not like it's easy to get into these programs. Have you ever seen the applications? They are huge, and leave little room for falsification.
    Hell, I support the Republican proposal that people entering these programs should be drug-tested first. I think that it is a great compromise, and more of this government funding will ultimately go to the right people.


    Like I said, the government isn't perfect; it certainly does over-reach from time to time. However, I think people have become so black-and-white when it comes to personal freedom. The idea has become over-romanticized in today's politics. The truth of the matter is that it is human nature for people to be selfish. People cannot handle certain personal freedoms. They just can't. For the sake of the greater good, people need limitations.

    Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012
  2. Unkotare
    Online

    Unkotare Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    61,545
    Thanks Received:
    4,889
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Ratings:
    +11,897
    You sound like you would be happier somewhere else.
     
  3. Billy000
    Online

    Billy000 Democratic Socialist

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,213
    Thanks Received:
    1,251
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +4,340
    No, I love America.
     
  4. Unkotare
    Online

    Unkotare Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    61,545
    Thanks Received:
    4,889
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Ratings:
    +11,897
    Well, then maybe you love it enough to take the trouble to understand it better.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  5. Billy000
    Online

    Billy000 Democratic Socialist

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,213
    Thanks Received:
    1,251
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +4,340
    Okay, what am I missing out on?
     
  6. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,674
    So do the Tea Partiers. Haven't they been complaining, too? What a nothing comment. Everybody sounds like they'd be happier somewhere else when they're complaining and let's not even get into Paul!!! :cool:
     
  7. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,674
    That's to be determined by the people. What's this mythical "understanding" you're talking about, as if everything's settled? LOL!!! When was THAT election held? You're trying to stifle debate the same way the "original intent"ers do by citing a "principle" that never existed.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,674
    Nothing, it's just the right trying to stifle debate. Apparently your position isn't politically correct. :cool:
     
  9. jillian
    Online

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,556
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,434
    that's the wrong question, billy... the right question is why they pretend to think the constitution is important, but don't respect the Court... unless of course the justices agree with their narrow world view.
     
  10. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,326
    Thanks Received:
    2,089
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +4,327
    And you seem to have no idea of why such a statement is so dangerous and goes against all it means to be an American. There is a reason that the founders called the un-alienable rights. The fact is that you are entrusting that government is somehow above the greed and corruption that you are hoping they regulate when that is not true in any sense of reality. Have you not noticed that the companies and businesses that you so espouse need control get MORE POWERFUL as the government itself sucks up power. Do you not miss the moral trap you fall into when someone else is capable of limiting your freedoms based on 'your best interests.'

    The fact is there is a process for changing the constitution because the founders knew that they could not produce a prefect document and certainly could not produce one that would be effective in 1800 AND in 2000. They were smarter than that so they set up a method to take care of such problems. The scary part is that you and others seem to be all right with simply discounting that method because it is more expedient and simpler to simply ignore the portions of the constitution that you do not like.


    Freedom is not 'romanticized.' Freedom is the cornerstone of why this nation exists and the most important, valuable thing we have. You may not care if yours is limited to make your life easier but I do and you have no right to limit me and say it is my best interest. What make you think that you have the moral high ground or the right to do such a thing. What makes you think that the power you are giving the government is going to follow your ideals. We could just as easily end up like North Korea. The sad fact about liberty and dependence is that once it is lost or dependence gained it is nigh impossible to reverse. In that, I ALWAYS err on the side of freedom, precious rights that cannot be regained, rather than err on the side of governmental controls, powers that will always grow.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4

Share This Page