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

[Billy000]

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.

 

[Unkotare]

You sound like you would be happier somewhere else.

 

[Billy000]

You sound like you would be happier somewhere else.

No, I love America.

 

[Unkotare]

Well, then maybe you love it enough to take the trouble to understand it better.

 

[Billy000]

Well, then maybe you love it enough to take the trouble to understand it better.

Okay, what am I missing out on?

 

[konradv]

You sound like you would be happier somewhere else.

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!!!

 

[konradv]

Well, then maybe you love it enough to take the trouble to understand it better.

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.

 

[konradv]

Well, then maybe you love it enough to take the trouble to understand it better.

Okay, what am I missing out on?

Nothing, it's just the right trying to stifle debate. Apparently your position isn't politically correct.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

People cannot handle certain personal freedoms. They just can't. For the sake of the greater good, people need limitations.

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.

 

[Billy000]

People cannot handle certain personal freedoms. They just can't. For the sake of the greater good, people need limitations.

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.

The government is corrupt, but do you know what is more corrupt? Corporations. That has become increasingly evident these last couple of decades.

More all or nothing thinking with you people. Yes, freedom is important. It is vital to happiness. But like I said, it needs limits. More limits than libertarians are willing to give.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

The government is corrupt, but do you know what is more corrupt? Corporations. That has become increasingly evident these last couple of decades.

More all or nothing thinking with you people. Yes, freedom is important. It is vital to happiness. But like I said, it needs limits. More limits than libertarians are willing to give.

It already has limits. When you infringe on someone else's freedom then that is the limit. Period.

The problem seems to be in equating corruption in corporations and corruption in government. The underlying issue here is that corporations do not have unlimited powers. They never will because government through law has the final say so. Give the government ultimate power and there is no recourse. You cannot go work for another government and a corporation cannot go to your home and arrest you because you don't agree with them. There are multiple corporation in the US but there is only ONE federal government. They have the ability to arrest you, KILL you, and take your property. You think that can compare to a corporation!!!!

The end result here is that when you give government more power you also give corporations more power too. Nowhere in my last post did I advocate that the corporations should have more freedoms? The answer was that I did not. PERSONAL freedom is the ultimate point here and that has nothing to do with corporations. As a general rule, one of governments jobs should be limiting the ability of a corporation to limit your freedom. I do not think that the tobacco company should be able to market their products to me without informing me of the harm that I could inflict upon myself in the process. On that same note, the federal government should nopt be limiting my freedom by taxing the crap out of cigarettes on a scale that has no connection to any other products. Personal freedom is key but that does not mean the corporation has any freedom other than to sell an honest product to an informed person.

As far as this vaunted all or nothing bullshit that you have labeled me with, that is crap and you know it. I specifically mentioned that the constitution can be changed. There is no all or nothing. There is a country defined by LAW or by WHIM. We have a nation of laws. Following the constitution is NOT a choice. It is a requirement that our society relies on as we are a nation of law. Why is it so terrible to ask that you actually follow it. What do you have against law?

 

[Billy000]

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.

The government is corrupt, but do you know what is more corrupt? Corporations. That has become increasingly evident these last couple of decades.

More all or nothing thinking with you people. Yes, freedom is important. It is vital to happiness. But like I said, it needs limits. More limits than libertarians are willing to give.

It already has limits. When you infringe on someone else's freedom then that is the limit. Period.

The problem seems to be in equating corruption in corporations and corruption in government. The underlying issue here is that corporations do not have unlimited powers. They never will because government through law has the final say so. Give the government ultimate power and there is no recourse. You cannot go work for another government and a corporation cannot go to your home and arrest you because you don't agree with them. There are multiple corporation in the US but there is only ONE federal government. They have the ability to arrest you, KILL you, and take your property. You think that can compare to a corporation!!!!

The end result here is that when you give government more power you also give corporations more power too. Nowhere in my last post did I advocate that the corporations should have more freedoms? The answer was that I did not. PERSONAL freedom is the ultimate point here and that has nothing to do with corporations. As a general rule, one of governments jobs should be limiting the ability of a corporation to limit your freedom. I do not think that the tobacco company should be able to market their products to me without informing me of the harm that I could inflict upon myself in the process. On that same note, the federal government should nopt be limiting my freedom by taxing the crap out of cigarettes on a scale that has no connection to any other products. Personal freedom is key but that does not mean the corporation has any freedom other than to sell an honest product to an informed person.

As far as this vaunted all or nothing bullshit that you have labeled me with, that is crap and you know it. I specifically mentioned that the constitution can be changed. There is no all or nothing. There is a country defined by LAW or by WHIM. We have a nation of laws. Following the constitution is NOT a choice. It is a requirement that our society relies on as we are a nation of law. Why is it so terrible to ask that you actually follow it. What do you have against law?

Your all or nothing thinking refers to your assumptions about my own beliefs.

If it weren't for the federal government, those cigarette companies wouldn't be giving those warnings.

 

[FA_Q2]

Your all or nothing thinking refers to your assumptions about my own beliefs.

If it weren't for the federal government, those cigarette companies wouldn't be giving those warnings.

My assumptions about your beliefs were based on the fact you do not see the need to follow the constitution as outlined in your OP and other posts that you have presented on this forum as well as the statement that I directly highlighted in my first post. I would also point out that nothing that I have typed in says that I have any issue with the fact that some regulations are necessary or that the warning labels in question were a result of government intervention.


I am done giving you reasoned and thought out responses with numerous points only to be answers with inane one liners that have no bearing on what I have stated. I would be better off bashing my keyboard randomly and then asking my dog to respond. Why do you even come here if you do not want actual answers or real debate?

 

[Care4all]

I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????

 

[Stephanie]

wow, If it weren't for the Federal Guberment we wouldn't have warning on cigarette packages..

NOW how the hell would we not have survived without them..

we should all bow down everyday in thanks

 

[Skull Pilot]

I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????

Libertarians would not want unlimited state authority any more than unlimited federal authority.

The whole idea is to have a government with the smallest footprint possible and still protect the rights of individuals.

It's pretty simple really.

 

[Care4all]

I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????

Libertarians would not want unlimited state authority any more than unlimited federal authority.

The whole idea is to have a government with the smallest footprint possible and still protect the rights of individuals.

It's pretty simple really.

Well, the US Constitution primarily limits Federal Control, but it does not limit the States from their own control.....imo.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????

Libertarians would not want unlimited state authority any more than unlimited federal authority.

The whole idea is to have a government with the smallest footprint possible and still protect the rights of individuals.

It's pretty simple really.

Well, the US Constitution primarily limits Federal Control, but it does not limit the States from their own control.....imo.

It's a two front war.

 

[Mac1958]

I'll be the first to admit that the government doesn't always get it right.

I'm definitely neither a Libertarian nor a Republican, but I'll take a stab at this.

First of all, to say that "government doesn't always get it right" is like saying that Phoenix can get a little warm in August. Virtually everything that government does comes at a significant premium, an extra cost, due to its inherent bloat and inefficiencies. It has NO competition, so it doesn't NEED to be efficient. I can't imagine that I need to start providing examples of this, and if I really do, I'll just bow out of the conversation.

Second is the breathtaking amount of fraud, abuse and corruption in bureaucracies. Once again, I can't imagine I need to burn time or bandwidth providing examples. But remember, all of the fraud, abuse and corruption in government is perpetrated while they and their apologists are telling us they're "helping" us. If a corporation breaks the rules, they can't make the same claim. I KNOW what a corporation's purpose is - to maximize shareholder value. They're not trying to claim they're making life "fair" for me, and I can choose another corporation with whom I do business, due to competition.

Third, and something that the American Right has completely failed to point out, is the fact that making millions of Americans, GENERATIONS of Americans, more and more dependent on someone else in the name of "compassion" is in fact the POLAR OPPOSITE of compassion. If anyone denies that dependence on the federal bureaucracy robs people of their very dignity, then that person is being intellectually dishonest. Worse yet is that this loss of dignity is now generational, and probably sentences millions of Americans to dependence permanently. Our culture is in decay partially (I said "partially") because of this.

Now, it's at this point that most leftists will start talking about roads, bridges and police, claiming that anyone who thinks the government plays too large a role wants NO government. Let's keep that silly straw man out of this, shall we? In my opinion, the American Right (especially with the advent of the Tea Party) is knee-jerking far too much away from the size of government. As in all things, there is a happy medium to the role of government.

The American Left has reached a point where it automatically looks to the federal bureaucracy to somehow make life "fair", to make us all "happy", to make everyone "equal". The founders knew quite well that government was not capable of this, and drafted a freaking amazing document to control the size, depth, breadth, cost and role of government precisely for that reason.

We're lucky we live in a country with such a document, even if many of us don't know it.

.