Curious, why do Libertarians only seem to care about the federal government?

[Avorysuds]

You think only white land owners should vote?

Your the one that likes Hamilton and the Federalist... who happen to share your big Government ideas.

I think if you have a Government job or are on welfare (subsidies included) you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Yes, even if you work for a company that gets subsidies. Schools that you attend or work at that revive federal Government money too...

 

[Foxfyre]

I never hear them objecting to the nanny statism going on at the state and local level. That impacts our lives a lot more. If you have a bunch of liberals banning everything they don't like at the state level, it won't really matter too much what the feds are doing.

The principles of cause and affect and are universal at any level of government. But if you remove California and maybe one or two other states that have lost their cotton picking minds entirely from the equation, at least the state and local governments are mandated to balance their budgets and, if the spotlight was off the federal government, the cold, clear. light of revelation would be focused on the more local governments. Without unlimited assets provided at the federal level, those local governments would naturally become more responsive and more honorable.

The Founders intended that federal government would have just enough laws and regulations to allow the individual colonies/states to function as one nation, would provide the common defense as necessary, and would secure the rights of the people.

Then they intended that the federal government would leave the people entirely alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have within their various states and communities.

Libertarians focus on the federal government as the greatest threat to the liberties the Founders gave us. Restore that, and the state governments will take care of themselves.

 

[FA_Q2]

I never hear them objecting to the nanny statism going on at the state and local level. That impacts our lives a lot more. If you have a bunch of liberals banning everything they don't like at the state level, it won't really matter too much what the feds are doing.

The states can be just as tyrannical as the Federal government, if not more so, with regard to issues such as abortion and same-sex couples’ access to marriage law, for example.

Indeed, when we review the history of civil rights litigation, we see numerous examples of the states violating individual liberty, as opposed to the Federal government.

Just a very few citations:

Hernandez v. Texas (1954): Texas laws authorizing discrimination against Hispanics struck down.

Cooper v. Aaron (1958): Arkansas law authorizing segregation struck down.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Florida law denying criminal defendants their 6Th Amendment rights struck down.

Loving v. Virginia (1967): Virginia law prohibiting interracial couples from marrying struck down.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972): Massachusetts law violating equal protection rights struck down.

Carey v. Population Services International (1977): New York law violating due process rights struck down.

Plyler v. Doe (1982): Texas law violating undocumented immigrants’ due process and equal protection rights struck down.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) Alabama law struck down violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The libertarian response to the above, of course, is that such issues should be addressed at the ballot box, not the in the courts.

There are, however, a number of problems with this position:

There is a lot of problems with that position, not the least of which is that it is not a libertarian position that you are taking. There are a few that might see it that way but the general idea of being a libertarian is NOT that rights don’t exist. That is YOUR projection on libertarian thought.

Whether one will have his civil rights or not is not determined by his state of residence; nor does one forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence. Whether one will have his civil liberties is also not determined by majority rule, as this is in conflict with the rule of law.

And if a person believes his civil liberties has been violated by a given state law, how long must he pursue the legislative process to seek relief? One year? Ten years? 20 years? Is not a Constitutional right delayed a right denied? In some jurisdictions it may take a lifetime before a civil liberty is restored through the political process, if at all.

Irrelevant as pointed out above. You are knocking down a straw man.

Obviously the notion of ‘let the states decide,’ as advocated by many libertarians, is naïve and impractical, where citizens in fact can seek relief to violations of their civil rights only in court.

Because, for the most part, let the states decide is not a matter of violations to civil rights. The states need to decide things like welfare, safety nets, education, administration of almost all programs etc. THAT is what the states need to decide, not whether or not you have a right to speak, practice religion, protection of unlawful searches and all the other rights that the constitution guards.

As I said, some see things as you point out but that is not a tenant of libertarianism. You are setting up more straw men.

However naïve and impractical Libertarianism may be, is a nonetheless a complex dogma, more philosophy than politics, predicated on the ideal that the individual alone knows best how to conduct his life, and that government mandate, even manifested in good faith, interferes with the individual making decisions in his own best interest, to the detriment of society as a whole.

Other than the opening barb, this is the first thing that you have correctly stated. You see it is naïve but I would tell you that your idea of big government ‘protecting’ the people and ensuring that they have rights is FAR more naive than libertarianism ever could dream to be. It is not naïve to trust the individual, it is naïve to trust others with your needs and rights.

This also calls into question how libertarian dogma has been contaminated with conservative dogma, and how partisan republicans have usurped libertarianism for political expediency. Indeed, more often than not, when one claims to be a ‘libertarian,’ he is not.

Bullshit. Plain and simple. What makes you think that those that are libertarian are not? Can you cite where ‘more often than not’ people are lying about their political stance? I find that rather inane as it is not even close to true. Most libertarians actually are libertarians where most ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ don’t even understand what it is they are supposed to stand for.

 

[FA_Q2]

I never hear them objecting to the nanny statism going on at the state and local level. That impacts our lives a lot more. If you have a bunch of liberals banning everything they don't like at the state level, it won't really matter too much what the feds are doing.

Actually, there is an even bigger embarrassment which most "Talk Radio Libertarians" never mention - and that's the relationship between government and corporations.Do you understand the point of lobbying and election funding? The market winners have captured the centralized power of the state. Government now exists to subsidize and bail out capital.

John Galt (the icon of free market capitalism) now craves state intervention. Indeed, business wants patent protection for its products so it can put a monopoly fence around its investments. Do you know how much the tax payer pays to maintain the patent system? But it doesn't stop there. Corporations want military support for their overseas supply chains. [Read the labels on your clothes and consumer goods. These things come from dangerous places that must be stabilized by our military. Do you know how much money it costs to ensure that our capitalists get ultra-cheap labor from freedom-hating, dictator-lead nations?] Corporations also require advanced industrial infrastructure - another generous gift from the taxpayer. Or what about FDIC insurance so risk is underwritten for free? Or what about the legal system which is needed to enforce their contracts and protect their property and investments? The public pays untold trillions to ensure their property, and their markets, and their profits are protected. Worse: banks get virtually free money from the fed (under 1%) to lend out at a high interest rate. The consumer electronics boom of the 80s came from technology that was developed in the state sector (through the Pentagon and NASA budgets). Before you make silly posts, study Boeing and commercial aviation, specifically the amount of state support given to this fabulous profit cow. Let's not even talk about what big government does for big oil.

What scares me is that you have been drugged with cliches about Government Control, but you have not done any research outside of your party's tightly controlled information system. You should at least understand the other side of the story.

Don't be their useful idiot. They're trying to convince you that the capitalist represents freedom - and freedom is dying at the hands of the Stalinist State. What they're not tell you is that they own the state. When a senator does not vote for special interests, he faces a primary challenge. Do you know how many rightwing senators, who passed the 2003 Drug Bill, are now pharmaceutical lobbyists?

You've been turned, unwittingly, into an apparachik for the special interests which run government.

Turn off talk radio and FOX News and research who owns government.

http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/cnswebbook.pdf

WOW, utter nonsense.

The most focused on subject by libertarians here is that very concept. Just because they don’t see the solution to that problem in the way that you do does not mean that it is not the same thing. You stating this makes me think that you have not bothered to read anything the libertarians here actually say.

 

[Foxfyre]

Enjoying FA_Q2's very well thought out and expressed commentary. I might quarrel with you just a bit on one point thought. You concluded your last post with: "Most libertarians actually are libertarians where most ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ don’t even understand what it is they are supposed to stand for."

I think many, if not most, conservatives do understand what they stand for and I am not sure all modern day libertarians fully understand what the classical liberalism aka libertarianism as the Founders' practiced was.

Yes, the states have and can form societies that are not everybody's cup of tea, but that was the whole sum of the Constitution: the people would have their rights secured and would be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. It was never intended nor expected that each state would design policy and local government that would be in lockstep with all the others.

If the people wanted to be overly religious and design a society based on very narrowly defined moral principles, they would have the right to that lifestyle. If they want a wide open society in which everybody does their own thing and pretty much anything goes, they would have the right to that lifestyle.

But when the federal government dictates what sort of society the people are required to have, none of us have any rights at all. And THAT, in a nutshell, is modern American liberalism.

And now I'm off to take my aunt to the doctor. Back later.

 

[FA_Q2]

Enjoying FA_Q2's very well thought out and expressed commentary. I might quarrel with you just a bit on one point thought. You concluded your last post with: "Most libertarians actually are libertarians where most ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ don’t even understand what it is they are supposed to stand for."

I think many, if not most, conservatives do understand what they stand for and I am not sure all modern day libertarians fully understand what the classical liberalism aka libertarianism as the Founders' practiced was.

I disagree and for the reasons that I gave you earlier but, as that was not public, I will reiterate some of that.

Libertarians have a pretty basic guiding principal of smaller government and grater powers as you get closer to the individual. That is libertarianism in a nutshell and because that basic principal, they don’t have much of a national platform. Conservatives, on the other hand, have a ‘moral’ guidance added onto that and that gives them a more defined platform with a whole list of positions that are at odds with the ‘smaller government’ concept.

Iwould say that many conservatives don’t even understand what being a conservative is because of all the tripe that I have seen on this very thread as well as personal relationsships. Look at the threads we have here, one right now is asking that the government mandate EBT lines at larger supermarkets. That goes against EVERYTHING that conservatives stand for yet the OP has plenty of posters there supporting that concept.

Then we have the hacks that trust the president explicitly as long as there is a ‘R’ next to the name. Those people call themselves conservatives but have no idea what a conservative actually is. Libertarians don’t have the rather large group of people, the hacks. That is not because libertarianism is immune to that or that they are ‘better’ but it is due to the fact that there is no one to be a hack for. Libertarians simply do not win elections on a scale (if at all) big enough to have hacks.

Yes, the states have and can form societies that are not everybody's cup of tea, but that was the whole sum of the Constitution: the people would have their rights secured and would be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. It was never intended nor expected that each state would design policy and local government that would be in lockstep with all the others.

If the people wanted to be overly religious and design a society based on very narrowly defined moral principles, they would have the right to that lifestyle. If they want a wide open society in which everybody does their own thing and pretty much anything goes, they would have the right to that lifestyle.

Insomuch as the constitution actually allows. You still have to contend with the rights of people like the freedom to practice whatever religion that you believe in. It certainly was never meant for the states to be similar though, as you stated. Today, there is very little variance tbh.

I would agree that the original intent of the founders is actually what you describe, virtually open ended powers in the state as the first is quite explicit in mentioning CONGRESS and not the states. This is one change in the constitution that the courts have done that I support though I would have preferred that such was accomplished properly through an amendment.

But when the federal government dictates what sort of society the people are required to have, none of us have any rights at all. And THAT, in a nutshell, is modern American liberalism.

And now I'm off to take my aunt to the doctor. Back later.

This is a good statement. It underlines why libertarians believe what they do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Enjoying FA_Q2's very well thought out and expressed commentary. I might quarrel with you just a bit on one point thought. You concluded your last post with: "Most libertarians actually are libertarians where most ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ don’t even understand what it is they are supposed to stand for."

I think many, if not most, conservatives do understand what they stand for and I am not sure all modern day libertarians fully understand what the classical liberalism aka libertarianism as the Founders' practiced was.

I disagree and for the reasons that I gave you earlier but, as that was not public, I will reiterate some of that.

Libertarians have a pretty basic guiding principal of smaller government and grater powers as you get closer to the individual. That is libertarianism in a nutshell and because that basic principal, they don’t have much of a national platform. Conservatives, on the other hand, have a ‘moral’ guidance added onto that and that gives them a more defined platform with a whole list of positions that are at odds with the ‘smaller government’ concept.

Iwould say that many conservatives don’t even understand what being a conservative is because of all the tripe that I have seen on this very thread as well as personal relationsships. Look at the threads we have here, one right now is asking that the government mandate EBT lines at larger supermarkets. That goes against EVERYTHING that conservatives stand for yet the OP has plenty of posters there supporting that concept.

Then we have the hacks that trust the president explicitly as long as there is a ‘R’ next to the name. Those people call themselves conservatives but have no idea what a conservative actually is. Libertarians don’t have the rather large group of people, the hacks. That is not because libertarianism is immune to that or that they are ‘better’ but it is due to the fact that there is no one to be a hack for. Libertarians simply do not win elections on a scale (if at all) big enough to have hacks.

Yes, the states have and can form societies that are not everybody's cup of tea, but that was the whole sum of the Constitution: the people would have their rights secured and would be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. It was never intended nor expected that each state would design policy and local government that would be in lockstep with all the others.

If the people wanted to be overly religious and design a society based on very narrowly defined moral principles, they would have the right to that lifestyle. If they want a wide open society in which everybody does their own thing and pretty much anything goes, they would have the right to that lifestyle.

Insomuch as the constitution actually allows. You still have to contend with the rights of people like the freedom to practice whatever religion that you believe in. It certainly was never meant for the states to be similar though, as you stated. Today, there is very little variance tbh.

I would agree that the original intent of the founders is actually what you describe, virtually open ended powers in the state as the first is quite explicit in mentioning CONGRESS and not the states. This is one change in the constitution that the courts have done that I support though I would have preferred that such was accomplished properly through an amendment.

But when the federal government dictates what sort of society the people are required to have, none of us have any rights at all. And THAT, in a nutshell, is modern American liberalism.

And now I'm off to take my aunt to the doctor. Back later.

This is a good statement. It underlines why libertarians believe what they do.

Ambiguity in personal convictions is certainly not exclusive to conservatives, though of course the very concept of conservatism allows people to be who they are, live as they choose, and form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

Where I have found libertarians to be wishy washy is when they jump on the band wagon to want it to be illegal for schools to include intelligent design in the curriculum, for example, or who want there to be no zoning laws or other such restrictions imposed by local governments, or who demand that there be no creche on the Courthouse lawn, but they don't see liberty as the choice to HAVE zoning laws and such other restrictions in the local society or intelligent design in the school or a creche on the courthouse lawn as the people wish. The wishy washy libertarians don't see how the ACLU oversteps its purpose and actually becomes as oppressive as the government actions it claims it protects us against.

We cannot be free unless the people, in any given area, are free to form the society they wish to have, are allowed to be as narrow minded or broad minded as they feel led, are allowed to create an environment that the rest of us would not want on a bet. A tyranny of the minority is not possible in a society that is truly free. A tyranny of the majority won't happen if our unalienable rights are recognized and protected. But again, if the federal government is allowed to dictate to everybody what sort of society they must have, none of us are in any way free.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Enjoying FA_Q2's very well thought out and expressed commentary. I might quarrel with you just a bit on one point thought. You concluded your last post with: "Most libertarians actually are libertarians where most ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ don’t even understand what it is they are supposed to stand for."

I think many, if not most, conservatives do understand what they stand for and I am not sure all modern day libertarians fully understand what the classical liberalism aka libertarianism as the Founders' practiced was.

I disagree and for the reasons that I gave you earlier but, as that was not public, I will reiterate some of that.

Libertarians have a pretty basic guiding principal of smaller government and grater powers as you get closer to the individual. That is libertarianism in a nutshell and because that basic principal, they don’t have much of a national platform. Conservatives, on the other hand, have a ‘moral’ guidance added onto that and that gives them a more defined platform with a whole list of positions that are at odds with the ‘smaller government’ concept.

Iwould say that many conservatives don’t even understand what being a conservative is because of all the tripe that I have seen on this very thread as well as personal relationsships. Look at the threads we have here, one right now is asking that the government mandate EBT lines at larger supermarkets. That goes against EVERYTHING that conservatives stand for yet the OP has plenty of posters there supporting that concept.

Then we have the hacks that trust the president explicitly as long as there is a ‘R’ next to the name. Those people call themselves conservatives but have no idea what a conservative actually is. Libertarians don’t have the rather large group of people, the hacks. That is not because libertarianism is immune to that or that they are ‘better’ but it is due to the fact that there is no one to be a hack for. Libertarians simply do not win elections on a scale (if at all) big enough to have hacks.

Insomuch as the constitution actually allows. You still have to contend with the rights of people like the freedom to practice whatever religion that you believe in. It certainly was never meant for the states to be similar though, as you stated. Today, there is very little variance tbh.

I would agree that the original intent of the founders is actually what you describe, virtually open ended powers in the state as the first is quite explicit in mentioning CONGRESS and not the states. This is one change in the constitution that the courts have done that I support though I would have preferred that such was accomplished properly through an amendment.

But when the federal government dictates what sort of society the people are required to have, none of us have any rights at all. And THAT, in a nutshell, is modern American liberalism.

And now I'm off to take my aunt to the doctor. Back later.

This is a good statement. It underlines why libertarians believe what they do.

Ambiguity in personal convictions is certainly not exclusive to conservatives, though of course the very concept of conservatism allows people to be who they are, live as they choose, and form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

Where I have found libertarians to be wishy washy is when they jump on the band wagon to want it to be illegal for schools to include intelligent design in the curriculum, for example, or who want there to be no zoning laws or other such restrictions imposed by local governments, or who demand that there be no creche on the Courthouse lawn, but they don't see liberty as the choice to HAVE zoning laws and such other restrictions in the local society or intelligent design in the school or a creche on the courthouse lawn as the people wish. The wishy washy libertarians don't see how the ACLU oversteps its purpose and actually becomes as oppressive as the government actions it claims it protects us against.

We cannot be free unless the people, in any given area, are free to form the society they wish to have, are allowed to be as narrow minded or broad minded as they feel led, are allowed to create an environment that the rest of us would not want on a bet. A tyranny of the minority is not possible in a society that is truly free. A tyranny of the majority won't happen if our unalienable rights are recognized and protected. But again, if the federal government is allowed to dictate to everybody what sort of society they must have, none of us are in any way free.

There's no difference between a local government or federal government dictating what society everybody should have in terms of freedom. Libertarians simply want property rights respected. The local government nor the federal government has the right to violate property rights, regardless of whether it's through zoning laws or what have you. You say this is "what the people want," but you could make that same for federal government laws. Oh, the "people" of the U.S. want such and such so it must be good. No level of government has the right to violate property rights, that's the libertarian position, regardless of what "society" says or wants.

As far as school curriculums, libertarians believe that all schools should be privatized and parents should be permitted to send their children to whatever school they want. Whether that school teaches intelligent design or not would be up them, and their customers, of course.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree and for the reasons that I gave you earlier but, as that was not public, I will reiterate some of that.

Libertarians have a pretty basic guiding principal of smaller government and grater powers as you get closer to the individual. That is libertarianism in a nutshell and because that basic principal, they don’t have much of a national platform. Conservatives, on the other hand, have a ‘moral’ guidance added onto that and that gives them a more defined platform with a whole list of positions that are at odds with the ‘smaller government’ concept.

Iwould say that many conservatives don’t even understand what being a conservative is because of all the tripe that I have seen on this very thread as well as personal relationsships. Look at the threads we have here, one right now is asking that the government mandate EBT lines at larger supermarkets. That goes against EVERYTHING that conservatives stand for yet the OP has plenty of posters there supporting that concept.

Then we have the hacks that trust the president explicitly as long as there is a ‘R’ next to the name. Those people call themselves conservatives but have no idea what a conservative actually is. Libertarians don’t have the rather large group of people, the hacks. That is not because libertarianism is immune to that or that they are ‘better’ but it is due to the fact that there is no one to be a hack for. Libertarians simply do not win elections on a scale (if at all) big enough to have hacks.

Insomuch as the constitution actually allows. You still have to contend with the rights of people like the freedom to practice whatever religion that you believe in. It certainly was never meant for the states to be similar though, as you stated. Today, there is very little variance tbh.

I would agree that the original intent of the founders is actually what you describe, virtually open ended powers in the state as the first is quite explicit in mentioning CONGRESS and not the states. This is one change in the constitution that the courts have done that I support though I would have preferred that such was accomplished properly through an amendment.

This is a good statement. It underlines why libertarians believe what they do.

Ambiguity in personal convictions is certainly not exclusive to conservatives, though of course the very concept of conservatism allows people to be who they are, live as they choose, and form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

Where I have found libertarians to be wishy washy is when they jump on the band wagon to want it to be illegal for schools to include intelligent design in the curriculum, for example, or who want there to be no zoning laws or other such restrictions imposed by local governments, or who demand that there be no creche on the Courthouse lawn, but they don't see liberty as the choice to HAVE zoning laws and such other restrictions in the local society or intelligent design in the school or a creche on the courthouse lawn as the people wish. The wishy washy libertarians don't see how the ACLU oversteps its purpose and actually becomes as oppressive as the government actions it claims it protects us against.

We cannot be free unless the people, in any given area, are free to form the society they wish to have, are allowed to be as narrow minded or broad minded as they feel led, are allowed to create an environment that the rest of us would not want on a bet. A tyranny of the minority is not possible in a society that is truly free. A tyranny of the majority won't happen if our unalienable rights are recognized and protected. But again, if the federal government is allowed to dictate to everybody what sort of society they must have, none of us are in any way free.

There's no difference between a local government or federal government dictating what society everybody should have in terms of freedom. Libertarians simply want property rights respected. The local government nor the federal government has the right to violate property rights, regardless of whether it's through zoning laws or what have you. You say this is "what the people want," but you could make that same for federal government laws. Oh, the "people" of the U.S. want such and such so it must be good. No level of government has the right to violate property rights, that's the libertarian position, regardless of what "society" says or wants.

As far as school curriculums, libertarians believe that all schools should be privatized and parents should be permitted to send their children to whatever school they want. Whether that school teaches intelligent design or not would be up them, and their customers, of course.

Yes there is a difference between local government and federal government. The federal government will base policy and laws on a one-size-fits-all approach or will single out special groups to favor in order to increase its own power and the personal fortunes of those in government. And if it angers one group, it has plenty of others it can manipulate or bribe and offset any negative reaction. And there is absolutely nothing the minority can do about it but just suck it up and endure. The people don't get to vote on much, if anything, the federal government does.

At the local level, the government is far more likely to be sensitive to the attitudes and needs of those they represent. And is far more likely to be responsive to the majority vote that will determine all issues having a major impact on the people whether that is a tax increase or a capital outlay for street improvements, or whatever. And if a minority isn't happy with the way things are, they can move to a location more to their liking. They aren't stuck with an unacceptable situation (to them) that is univeral across the country.

If we were truly free, those people who want all schools privatized could go in that direction. Those wanting a social contract in which resources and pooled to form a local public school district could do that. And the federal government would have no say, influence, or ability to dictate or manipulate whatsoever.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ambiguity in personal convictions is certainly not exclusive to conservatives, though of course the very concept of conservatism allows people to be who they are, live as they choose, and form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

Where I have found libertarians to be wishy washy is when they jump on the band wagon to want it to be illegal for schools to include intelligent design in the curriculum, for example, or who want there to be no zoning laws or other such restrictions imposed by local governments, or who demand that there be no creche on the Courthouse lawn, but they don't see liberty as the choice to HAVE zoning laws and such other restrictions in the local society or intelligent design in the school or a creche on the courthouse lawn as the people wish. The wishy washy libertarians don't see how the ACLU oversteps its purpose and actually becomes as oppressive as the government actions it claims it protects us against.

We cannot be free unless the people, in any given area, are free to form the society they wish to have, are allowed to be as narrow minded or broad minded as they feel led, are allowed to create an environment that the rest of us would not want on a bet. A tyranny of the minority is not possible in a society that is truly free. A tyranny of the majority won't happen if our unalienable rights are recognized and protected. But again, if the federal government is allowed to dictate to everybody what sort of society they must have, none of us are in any way free.

There's no difference between a local government or federal government dictating what society everybody should have in terms of freedom. Libertarians simply want property rights respected. The local government nor the federal government has the right to violate property rights, regardless of whether it's through zoning laws or what have you. You say this is "what the people want," but you could make that same for federal government laws. Oh, the "people" of the U.S. want such and such so it must be good. No level of government has the right to violate property rights, that's the libertarian position, regardless of what "society" says or wants.

As far as school curriculums, libertarians believe that all schools should be privatized and parents should be permitted to send their children to whatever school they want. Whether that school teaches intelligent design or not would be up them, and their customers, of course.

Yes there is a difference between local government and federal government. The federal government will base policy and laws on a one-size-fits-all approach or will single out special groups to favor in order to increase its own power and the personal fortunes of those in government. And if it angers one group, it has plenty of others it can manipulate or bribe and offset any negative reaction. And there is absolutely nothing the minority can do about it but just suck it up and endure. The people don't get to vote on much, if anything, the federal government does.

At the local level, the government is far more likely to be sensitive to the attitudes and needs of those they represent. And is far more likely to be responsive to the majority vote that will determine all issues having a major impact on the people whether that is a tax increase or a capital outlay for street improvements, or whatever. And if a minority isn't happy with the way things are, they can move to a location more to their liking. They aren't stuck with an unacceptable situation (to them) that is univeral across the country.

If we were truly free, those people who want all schools privatized could go in that direction. Those wanting a social contract in which resources and pooled to form a local public school district could do that. And the federal government would have no say, influence, or ability to dictate or manipulate whatsoever.

Why should I have to move when I own property and the majority in my locale decides to violate my property rights? And why can't people just move out of the country if they don't like what the U.S. government does? Canada's not that far away.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

There's no difference between a local government or federal government dictating what society everybody should have in terms of freedom. Libertarians simply want property rights respected. The local government nor the federal government has the right to violate property rights, regardless of whether it's through zoning laws or what have you. You say this is "what the people want," but you could make that same for federal government laws. Oh, the "people" of the U.S. want such and such so it must be good. No level of government has the right to violate property rights, that's the libertarian position, regardless of what "society" says or wants.

As far as school curriculums, libertarians believe that all schools should be privatized and parents should be permitted to send their children to whatever school they want. Whether that school teaches intelligent design or not would be up them, and their customers, of course.

Yes there is a difference between local government and federal government. The federal government will base policy and laws on a one-size-fits-all approach or will single out special groups to favor in order to increase its own power and the personal fortunes of those in government. And if it angers one group, it has plenty of others it can manipulate or bribe and offset any negative reaction. And there is absolutely nothing the minority can do about it but just suck it up and endure. The people don't get to vote on much, if anything, the federal government does.

At the local level, the government is far more likely to be sensitive to the attitudes and needs of those they represent. And is far more likely to be responsive to the majority vote that will determine all issues having a major impact on the people whether that is a tax increase or a capital outlay for street improvements, or whatever. And if a minority isn't happy with the way things are, they can move to a location more to their liking. They aren't stuck with an unacceptable situation (to them) that is univeral across the country.

If we were truly free, those people who want all schools privatized could go in that direction. Those wanting a social contract in which resources and pooled to form a local public school district could do that. And the federal government would have no say, influence, or ability to dictate or manipulate whatsoever.

Why should I have to move when I own property and the majority in my locale decides to violate my property rights? And why can't people just move out of the country if they don't like what the U.S. government does? Canada's not that far away.

Canada can say "no."

New Jersey can't.

 

[Oddball]

Canada: Smarter than New Jersey.

Whodathunkit?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes there is a difference between local government and federal government. The federal government will base policy and laws on a one-size-fits-all approach or will single out special groups to favor in order to increase its own power and the personal fortunes of those in government. And if it angers one group, it has plenty of others it can manipulate or bribe and offset any negative reaction. And there is absolutely nothing the minority can do about it but just suck it up and endure. The people don't get to vote on much, if anything, the federal government does.

At the local level, the government is far more likely to be sensitive to the attitudes and needs of those they represent. And is far more likely to be responsive to the majority vote that will determine all issues having a major impact on the people whether that is a tax increase or a capital outlay for street improvements, or whatever. And if a minority isn't happy with the way things are, they can move to a location more to their liking. They aren't stuck with an unacceptable situation (to them) that is univeral across the country.

If we were truly free, those people who want all schools privatized could go in that direction. Those wanting a social contract in which resources and pooled to form a local public school district could do that. And the federal government would have no say, influence, or ability to dictate or manipulate whatsoever.

Why should I have to move when I own property and the majority in my locale decides to violate my property rights? And why can't people just move out of the country if they don't like what the U.S. government does? Canada's not that far away.

Canada can say "no."

New Jersey can't.

True. But the point is that nobody should be able to violate property rights, whether it's the federal government, local government, or 51% of a given population. I'm saying that that argument, that you can move, is not valid on any level, because it presupposes that somebody has the right to violate private property. Fox's argument rests on the assumption that the federal government shouldn't be able to violate property rights, but that the local government or a majority of voters at the local level should.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Why should I have to move when I own property and the majority in my locale decides to violate my property rights? And why can't people just move out of the country if they don't like what the U.S. government does? Canada's not that far away.

Canada can say "no."

New Jersey can't.

True. But the point is that nobody should be able to violate property rights, whether it's the federal government, local government, or 51% of a given population. I'm saying that that argument, that you can move, is not valid on any level, because it presupposes that somebody has the right to violate private property. Fox's argument rests on the assumption that the federal government shouldn't be able to violate property rights, but that the local government or a majority of voters at the local level should.

I didn't read Fox's post as saying or implying that it was "ok" to violate anybody's property rights.

I read her post as saying that the local government is more likely to be RESPONSIVE but that, failing that, we retain the right to move to a different state. Experimentation is thus much more practical within the States.

I do agree that "moving" is not the most viable of solutions. But there ARE checks on the power and authority of the States. It's just that SOME of the checks on government power are not the same at the state level as they are at the Federal level. And there are reasons for this. Good reasons.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Canada: Smarter than New Jersey.

Whodathunkit?

Canada won't let me in, but if I wanted to move to Joisey, they couldn't stop me!

Halp!! I iz being persecuted.

 

[Foxfyre]

There's no difference between a local government or federal government dictating what society everybody should have in terms of freedom. Libertarians simply want property rights respected. The local government nor the federal government has the right to violate property rights, regardless of whether it's through zoning laws or what have you. You say this is "what the people want," but you could make that same for federal government laws. Oh, the "people" of the U.S. want such and such so it must be good. No level of government has the right to violate property rights, that's the libertarian position, regardless of what "society" says or wants.

As far as school curriculums, libertarians believe that all schools should be privatized and parents should be permitted to send their children to whatever school they want. Whether that school teaches intelligent design or not would be up them, and their customers, of course.

Yes there is a difference between local government and federal government. The federal government will base policy and laws on a one-size-fits-all approach or will single out special groups to favor in order to increase its own power and the personal fortunes of those in government. And if it angers one group, it has plenty of others it can manipulate or bribe and offset any negative reaction. And there is absolutely nothing the minority can do about it but just suck it up and endure. The people don't get to vote on much, if anything, the federal government does.

At the local level, the government is far more likely to be sensitive to the attitudes and needs of those they represent. And is far more likely to be responsive to the majority vote that will determine all issues having a major impact on the people whether that is a tax increase or a capital outlay for street improvements, or whatever. And if a minority isn't happy with the way things are, they can move to a location more to their liking. They aren't stuck with an unacceptable situation (to them) that is univeral across the country.

If we were truly free, those people who want all schools privatized could go in that direction. Those wanting a social contract in which resources and pooled to form a local public school district could do that. And the federal government would have no say, influence, or ability to dictate or manipulate whatsoever.

Why should I have to move when I own property and the majority in my locale decides to violate my property rights? And why can't people just move out of the country if they don't like what the U.S. government does? Canada's not that far away.

The Founders saw the purpose of the federal government to be to secure the rights of the people, including property rights, to provide the common defense, and enact just sufficient laws and regulation to allow the separate colonies/states to function effectively as one nation. That is ALL they saw as allowed to the federal government to do.

But since the Teddy Roosevelt administraton, there has been no greater corruption of unalienable rights imposed on the people and no greater violation of property rights than those the federal government has imposed on us by those who did not/do not care about the original intent of the Constitution.

Under local law, if you don't like the way the majority chooses, you can move to a different city or state and still retain your constitutionally protected unalienable rights. That option is taken away when it is the federal government who oppresses you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Canada can say "no."

New Jersey can't.

True. But the point is that nobody should be able to violate property rights, whether it's the federal government, local government, or 51% of a given population. I'm saying that that argument, that you can move, is not valid on any level, because it presupposes that somebody has the right to violate private property. Fox's argument rests on the assumption that the federal government shouldn't be able to violate property rights, but that the local government or a majority of voters at the local level should.

I didn't read Fox's post as saying or implying that it was "ok" to violate anybody's property rights.

I read her post as saying that the local government is more likely to be RESPONSIVE but that, failing that, we retain the right to move to a different state. Experimentation is thus much more practical within the States.

I do agree that "moving" is not the most viable of solutions. But there ARE checks on the power and authority of the States. It's just that SOME of the checks on government power are not the same at the state level as they are at the Federal level. And there are reasons for this. Good reasons.

No, she's saying everything that you are discussing here, but here's the part I objected to in bold:

Where I have found libertarians to be wishy washy is when they jump on the band wagon to want it to be illegal for schools to include intelligent design in the curriculum, for example, or who want there to be no zoning laws or other such restrictions imposed by local governments, or who demand that there be no creche on the Courthouse lawn, but they don't see liberty as the choice to HAVE zoning laws and such other restrictions in the local society or intelligent design in the school or a creche on the courthouse lawn as the people wish. The wishy washy libertarians don't see how the ACLU oversteps its purpose and actually becomes as oppressive as the government actions it claims it protects us against.

We cannot be free unless the people, in any given area, are free to form the society they wish to have, are allowed to be as narrow minded or broad minded as they feel led, are allowed to create an environment that the rest of us would not want on a bet. A tyranny of the minority is not possible in a society that is truly free. A tyranny of the majority won't happen if our unalienable rights are recognized and protected. But again, if the federal government is allowed to dictate to everybody what sort of society they must have, none of us are in any way free.

Zoning laws are laws that violate private property. People forming "the society they wish to have" is another example, because not everybody is going to agree. So if the society that the majority wishes to have violates the property rights of the minority, it's no better whatsoever than if the federal government does it. You're not free just because you can move to another state, just as you're not free because you could move to another country if it were the federal government. You're free when your private property rights are secure. Period.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes there is a difference between local government and federal government. The federal government will base policy and laws on a one-size-fits-all approach or will single out special groups to favor in order to increase its own power and the personal fortunes of those in government. And if it angers one group, it has plenty of others it can manipulate or bribe and offset any negative reaction. And there is absolutely nothing the minority can do about it but just suck it up and endure. The people don't get to vote on much, if anything, the federal government does.

At the local level, the government is far more likely to be sensitive to the attitudes and needs of those they represent. And is far more likely to be responsive to the majority vote that will determine all issues having a major impact on the people whether that is a tax increase or a capital outlay for street improvements, or whatever. And if a minority isn't happy with the way things are, they can move to a location more to their liking. They aren't stuck with an unacceptable situation (to them) that is univeral across the country.

If we were truly free, those people who want all schools privatized could go in that direction. Those wanting a social contract in which resources and pooled to form a local public school district could do that. And the federal government would have no say, influence, or ability to dictate or manipulate whatsoever.

Why should I have to move when I own property and the majority in my locale decides to violate my property rights? And why can't people just move out of the country if they don't like what the U.S. government does? Canada's not that far away.

The Founders saw the purpose of the federal government to be to secure the rights of the people, including property rights, to provide the common defense, and enact just sufficient laws and regulation to allow the separate colonies/states to function effectively as one nation. That is ALL they saw as allowed to the federal government to do.

But since the Teddy Roosevelt administraton, there has been no greater corruption of unalienable rights imposed on the people and no greater violation of property rights than those the federal government has imposed on us by those who did not/do not care about the original intent of the Constitution.

Under local law, if you don't like the way the majority chooses, you can move to a different city or state and still retain your constitutionally protected unalienable rights. That option is taken away when it is the federal government who oppresses you.

Again, I point out that if you don't like what the majority in the United States as a country chooses then you can move to a different country.

 

[Foxfyre]

True. But the point is that nobody should be able to violate property rights, whether it's the federal government, local government, or 51% of a given population. I'm saying that that argument, that you can move, is not valid on any level, because it presupposes that somebody has the right to violate private property. Fox's argument rests on the assumption that the federal government shouldn't be able to violate property rights, but that the local government or a majority of voters at the local level should.

I didn't read Fox's post as saying or implying that it was "ok" to violate anybody's property rights.

I read her post as saying that the local government is more likely to be RESPONSIVE but that, failing that, we retain the right to move to a different state. Experimentation is thus much more practical within the States.

I do agree that "moving" is not the most viable of solutions. But there ARE checks on the power and authority of the States. It's just that SOME of the checks on government power are not the same at the state level as they are at the Federal level. And there are reasons for this. Good reasons.

No, she's saying everything that you are discussing here, but here's the part I objected to in bold:

Where I have found libertarians to be wishy washy is when they jump on the band wagon to want it to be illegal for schools to include intelligent design in the curriculum, for example, or who want there to be no zoning laws or other such restrictions imposed by local governments, or who demand that there be no creche on the Courthouse lawn, but they don't see liberty as the choice to HAVE zoning laws and such other restrictions in the local society or intelligent design in the school or a creche on the courthouse lawn as the people wish. The wishy washy libertarians don't see how the ACLU oversteps its purpose and actually becomes as oppressive as the government actions it claims it protects us against.

We cannot be free unless the people, in any given area, are free to form the society they wish to have, are allowed to be as narrow minded or broad minded as they feel led, are allowed to create an environment that the rest of us would not want on a bet. A tyranny of the minority is not possible in a society that is truly free. A tyranny of the majority won't happen if our unalienable rights are recognized and protected. But again, if the federal government is allowed to dictate to everybody what sort of society they must have, none of us are in any way free.

Zoning laws are laws that violate private property. People forming "the society they wish to have" is another example, because not everybody is going to agree. So if the society that the majority wishes to have violates the property rights of the minority, it's no better whatsoever than if the federal government does it. You're not free just because you can move to another state, just as you're not free because you could move to another country if it were the federal government. You're free when your private property rights are secure. Period.

Zoning laws at the local level are part of the social contract to protect property values and the character of the community. They should always be based on the majority will and agreement. And of course everybody is not going to agree, which is why social contract is based on the majority will. If the majority don't want zoning, there should be no zoning. If the majority do want zoning there should be zoning.

Freedom is the right to have it as the people collectively want their society to be without the right to demand that all other societies also conform. But the people themselves should have the right to make whatever rules they want in their own community that makes it possible for them to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And, if things are working out as expected, they should be able to change those rules for something different.

And if you don't like those laws, you should have every right to get together with other like minded folks and form a different kind of society that is more to your liking.

And still, the federal government should have no say in what the social contract will be. If we hand those rights to the federal government to administer, we have no rights of any kind at all.

 

[numan]

Why should I have to move when I own property and the majority in my locale decides to violate my property rights? And why can't people just move out of the country if they don't like what the U.S. government does? Canada's not that far away.

Canada probably wouldn't want you.

Of course, if you brought in a bundle of money, or set up a business, or had some special skill, they might take you in.

Canada has shown no interest in subsidizing American losers.
.