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

[Oddball]

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.

Do you know what the biggest corporation in the entire world is?....District of Columbia.

From the NATIONAL ARCHIVES:

Established: Effective June 1, 1871, by an act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419), abolishing the Corporations of the City of Washington, DC, and Georgetown, DC, and the Levy Court of Washington County, DC; and replacing them with a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.

Records of the Government of the District of Columbia


Who wants virtually no limits or constraints on that corporation?....You.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Please elaborate on the types of personal freedoms that, in your opinion, people cannot handle?

 

[Lovebears65]

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.

If you believe that you are stupider then I thought

 

[BlindBoo]

That is the power of a Republic, Individuals have the rights not the majority.

If 94% wanted the Oranges that were on your property and you said, "No, this is my property and my oranges. You can't have them!" The government steps in and says, "Ok. We will have a debate and then vote if you have a right to your Oranges!" That is a democracy.

A republic is where the government defends an individuals right and says "This is his property and he has a right to the fruits of his labor!" The Republic of the United States

Almost 80 % of Americans think medical marijuana should be legally avaliable. Yet the Federal government still classifies it as a class A narcotic with no medicinal value? Constitutional Amendments require 3/4 of the states to ratify. I guess the other 1/4 can suck eggs?

 

[Oddball]

That is the power of a Republic, Individuals have the rights not the majority.

If 94% wanted the Oranges that were on your property and you said, "No, this is my property and my oranges. You can't have them!" The government steps in and says, "Ok. We will have a debate and then vote if you have a right to your Oranges!" That is a democracy.

A republic is where the government defends an individuals right and says "This is his property and he has a right to the fruits of his labor!" The Republic of the United States

Almost 80 % of Americans think medical marijuana should be legally avaliable. Yet the Federal government still classifies it as a class A narcotic with no medicinal value?

Yet another example of the feds ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments of that "Constitution" thingy that they swear an oath to preserve and protect....Speaking of which, why is it that those Jacobin progressives who believe that document to be fungible at will and/or archaic, bother to go through with the charade of taking said oath?

 

[tenthertoo]

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.

Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.

Perhaps it was the 70's (it certainly has been a long time) that I began to be concerned that money had become a commodity
like steel or agricultural products. That people began make "industries" to trade money or money instruments and that fortunes were made doing so. People began to trade businesses merely for the money they could make in turning them over. Great corporations like General Electric began to make their core activities subservient to expansions and acquisitions having little or nothing to do with the activities that made them great.

It was such things, I believe, that brought us to where we are - fortunes being made with an ever diminishing industrial base.

I would not accuse you of being a freedom-hating socialist. Thanks for your thoughts.

BTW: I am not a libertarian

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

The whole point of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to limit our government and ensure civil rights and liberties, hence limits on how far "progress" can go.

Not all progress is good progress.

Look at the socioeconomic hell; Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong Il, Ho Chi-Minh, Hitler, Guevara, Castro, Saddam, Gaddafi etc created.....

Those were all "progressive" governments/dictatorships..

Of course most progressives would say "oh that would never happen here" -- Yeah probably not if we FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION AND EMBRACE THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Allowing politicians to just side-step the Constitution and contradict the Bill of Rights when its trendy for them to do so is like having no Constitution at all.....

Those slimy bastards should be held accountable for their tyranny however most wont because there are too many lazy motherfuckers in this country that benefit off their tyranny so the could care less just as long as they get their cake...

Of course that's why we get modern progressive asshole asking questions like "whats so important about that old document anyways."

They're more than willing to give up their liberty for security...

 

[freedombecki]

That is the power of a Republic, Individuals have the rights not the majority.

If 94% wanted the Oranges that were on your property and you said, "No, this is my property and my oranges. You can't have them!" The government steps in and says, "Ok. We will have a debate and then vote if you have a right to your Oranges!" That is a democracy.

A republic is where the government defends an individuals right and says "This is his property and he has a right to the fruits of his labor!" The Republic of the United States

Almost 80 % of Americans think medical marijuana should be legally avaliable. Yet the Federal government still classifies it as a class A narcotic with no medicinal value?

Yet another example of the feds ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments of that "Constitution" thingy that they swear an oath to preserve and protect....Speaking of which, why is it that those Jacobin progressives who believe that document to be fungible at will and/or archaic, bother to go through with the charade of taking said oath?

Yep. The last one had to say it twice, the second time in SCOTUS chambers, as I recollect.

 

[Meister]

That is the power of a Republic, Individuals have the rights not the majority.

If 94% wanted the Oranges that were on your property and you said, "No, this is my property and my oranges. You can't have them!" The government steps in and says, "Ok. We will have a debate and then vote if you have a right to your Oranges!" That is a democracy.

A republic is where the government defends an individuals right and says "This is his property and he has a right to the fruits of his labor!" The Republic of the United States

Well, now that they changed the Eminent Domain law, they may just take your land and give you what is deemed fair market value.

 

[hortysir]

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.

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



Your interpretation of it.....

 

[Douger]

Probably the same thing that makes Duh Byble so important to murkins.