Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[Dad2three]

You said the majority is always right, so how does that have nothing to do with what you said? Is it because you only support the majority when you agree with it?

That's not what I said and I'm not going to re-state what I really said.

You just posted that the primary purpose of the government is to enforce the will of the majority. The majority of California voted against same sex marriage. You opposed that, and and rejoiced when the government interfered in the will of the majority.

Deal with the fact that you are a liar, I already knew it.

Majority can't take away RIGHTS. Get a grip





The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943

 

[Dad2three]

The Constitution was designed to protect all the people, which is exactly why they put in the checks and balances. They knew what happened to Greece and other pure democracies...........These systems failed in the end because of the tyranny of a simple majority of the people over the rest of the people. Well, that's part of it.

When the Dems gained all the control, they attempted to steam roll their liberal agenda through and they damn well succeed in pushing their ideologies on everyone. If it wasn't for the System in place and some Blue Dogs they would have succeeded.

They then claimed...............THE PEOPLE WILLED IT.....................No they did not...Even though you controlled all at the time you still only had a small victory in terms of the population of the United States. You forget that about 45% of the nation was telling you where you can shove your agenda.

Later your own side even went against you and you lost the house. The only reason you passed the ACA is because of Woodrow Wilson. Who changed the way Senators are selected. He took away the voice of the State Legislatures........And had that been in place, you would had a Snow Balls chance in hell passing it. Wilson understood it's much harder to buy off an Entire State than two Senators.............And now we have career politicians bought and paid for who back in the day would have been recalled for voting for the ACA..............

Your side should bow to his grave.

I believe the concepts and principles of the Constitution have been lost, and MUST be restored to save our nation from the final stages of Dependency. As we have learned that once we can get money from the coffers of the country there is no turning back.

The Founding Fathers Warned us about this and they called it USURY, and the Tyranny of the Majority.

Weird, you realize Madison objected to states selecting the Senators right?


“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace.” Samuel Adams


“As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard.” — Alexander Hamilton




“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men…” –John Adams



“Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science and manufactures.” Thomas Paine





Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

You realize Madison lost that argument, don't you?

Yep, it was a compromise and good thing we came up with the 17th, you know CHANGE you can believe in?

 

[Dad2three]

FIRST LINK I GAVE BUBBA, Has it right there


"[N]either the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement...

Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself...

A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection."


Oct. 2, 1989

Heritage Foundation Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans (1.6 MB) , by Stuart M. Butler *


http://healthcarereform.procon.org/..._affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

So the problem is you do not know how to read?

• They expressly oppose a government funded system.
• They expressly oppose an employee mandate.
• They support not giving employers a tax break for health care, and say that it should be taxable income for the employee.
• The mandate they support is for catastrophic coverage, not everything under the sun coverage.

Sound just like Obamacare, doesn't it?

lol, Weird, ignore EVERYTHING else that they said about Romney care, and hold onto right wing talking points



I'll make it simple for you



LIKE SS, MEDICARE, LABOR LAWS, MIN WAGE LAWS, ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, ETC, EVERYTHING CONSERVATIVES/LIBERTARIANS FOUGHT AGAINST, ACA IS HERE TO STAY

 

[NYcarbineer]

You said the majority is always right, so how does that have nothing to do with what you said? Is it because you only support the majority when you agree with it?

That's not what I said and I'm not going to re-state what I really said.

You just posted that the primary purpose of the government is to enforce the will of the majority. The majority of California voted against same sex marriage. You opposed that, and and rejoiced when the government interfered in the will of the majority.

Deal with the fact that you are a liar, I already knew it.

The Constitution is the ultimate will of the majority. The good people of the great state of California are a minority in numbers compared to the population of the nation. States rights are minority rights but they only exist if the federal government, i.e. the majority, have allowed them to exist.

Many conservatives want an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as one man one woman. For that to happen, a majority, technically a super-majority would have to support it, but,

it could happen, theoretically, and thus the 'will' of the minority of Americans who want to be legally married in same sex unions would be thwarted by the majority.

The only alternative to majority rule is chaos.

 

[dblack]

... protecting our freedom to act on our individual will is the primary purpose of government.

No. The primary purpose of government is to carry out the will of the majority.

That sums up the debate alright. Equal rights vs. mob rule.

 

[dblack]

In short, what are you talking about?

You don't know.

 

[Contumacious]

We tried a 'charity only' society...it FAILED. Educate yourself...

n

I see. Your food stamp allowance wasn't high enough so now you are ready for
V-I-O-L-E-N-C-E

Just remember vioelnce begets violence.

.

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson










What are the American ideals? They are the development of the individual for his own and the common good; the development of the individual through liberty, and the attainment of the common good through democracy and social justice.
Louis Brandeis, SCOTUS “True Americanism” (1915).

That does not mean a gargantuan welfare state ready to steal loot and plunder in order to support the ever growing hordes of parasites.

.

 

[rightwinger]

... protecting our freedom to act on our individual will is the primary purpose of government.

No. The primary purpose of government is to carry out the will of the majority.

That sums up the debate alright. Equal rights vs. mob rule.

In your perfect libertarian society, how does one deal with the "equal rights" of a minority?

When legislation is passed, how do we deal with those who disagree with the legislation? Do they just get to ignore it?

 

[Contumacious]

No. The primary purpose of government is to carry out the will of the majority.

That sums up the debate alright. Equal rights vs. mob rule.

In your perfect libertarian society, how does one deal with the "equal rights" of a minority?

When legislation is passed, how do we deal with those who disagree with the legislation? Do they just get to ignore it?

A Libertarian society would have OBJECTIVE LAWS. They would never demand that party "A" provide insurance to Party "B".

.

 

[dblack]

No. The primary purpose of government is to carry out the will of the majority.

That sums up the debate alright. Equal rights vs. mob rule.

In your perfect libertarian society, how does one deal with the "equal rights" of a minority?

Well, the equal rights of the minority are exactly the same as those of the majority, so we deal with them in exactly the same way.

When legislation is passed, how do we deal with those who disagree with the legislation? Do they just get to ignore it?

Of course not. I'm not sure how you get that from what I'm saying.

 

[rightwinger]

That sums up the debate alright. Equal rights vs. mob rule.

In your perfect libertarian society, how does one deal with the "equal rights" of a minority?

When legislation is passed, how do we deal with those who disagree with the legislation? Do they just get to ignore it?

A Libertarian society would have OBJECTIVE LAWS. They would never demand that party "A" provide insurance to Party "B".

.

But as a member of our society, you would be faced with laws that do not meet your objectives. You can't always get what you want as a libertarian. How do you propose we deal with laws you do not agree with?

 

[rightwinger]

That sums up the debate alright. Equal rights vs. mob rule.

In your perfect libertarian society, how does one deal with the "equal rights" of a minority?

Well, the equal rights of the minority are exactly the same as those of the majority, so we deal with them in exactly the same way.

When legislation is passed, how do we deal with those who disagree with the legislation? Do they just get to ignore it?

Of course not. I'm not sure how you get that from what I'm saying.

Your equal rights as a minority allow you to contact your representative and give your reason why you want him to vote your way. Those are exactly the same rights as those in the majority have.
If your argument is persuasive, he may agree to vote your way. If not, you will lose

That does not mean your rights were violated as a minority

 

[dblack]

In your perfect libertarian society, how does one deal with the "equal rights" of a minority?

When legislation is passed, how do we deal with those who disagree with the legislation? Do they just get to ignore it?

A Libertarian society would have OBJECTIVE LAWS. They would never demand that party "A" provide insurance to Party "B".

.

But as a member of our society, you would be faced with laws that do not meet your objectives. You can't always get what you want as a libertarian. How do you propose we deal with laws you do not agree with?

Laws are laws - we all have to follow them whether we agree with them or not. That's why making sure those laws are just, and limited to situations where the conformity of law is truly necessary, is so important.

This is why I keep coming back to a clear understanding of the purpose of government and laws. The libertarian perspective is that government exists for the purpose of protecting our freedom and, as much as practical, should be limited to that function.

But you, and many others here, seem to see the government as kind of the all-purpose 'boss' of society - a tool for making any important decisions for society and then mandating conformity. That's what we libertarians reject.

 

[Contumacious]

In your perfect libertarian society, how does one deal with the "equal rights" of a minority?

When legislation is passed, how do we deal with those who disagree with the legislation? Do they just get to ignore it?

A Libertarian society would have OBJECTIVE LAWS. They would never demand that party "A" provide insurance to Party "B".

.

But as a member of our society, you would be faced with laws that do not meet your objectives. You can't always get what you want as a libertarian. How do you propose we deal with laws you do not agree with?

Again, OBJECTIVE LAWS protect our right to life, liberty , property and to pursue happiness.

I support those laws. If I don't agree with a particular law then it is because the law is not objective.

.

 

[rightwinger]

A Libertarian society would have OBJECTIVE LAWS. They would never demand that party "A" provide insurance to Party "B".

.

But as a member of our society, you would be faced with laws that do not meet your objectives. You can't always get what you want as a libertarian. How do you propose we deal with laws you do not agree with?

Laws are laws - we all have to follow them whether we agree with them or not. That's why making sure those laws are just, and limited to situations where the conformity of law is truly necessary, is so important.

This is why I keep coming back to a clear understanding of the purpose of government and laws. The libertarian perspective is that government exists for the purpose of protecting our freedom and, as much as practical, should be limited to that function.
But you, and many others here, seem to see the government as kind of the all-purpose 'boss' of society - a tool for making any important decisions for society and then mandating conformity. That's what we libertarians reject.

As a libertarian, that is what you believe the purpose of government is limited to

As a citizen, you are free to vote for those who support your views. Other citizens who believe their government has wider responsibilities will vote for those who support their views

Personally, I want a government that does what needs doing, not one that is constrained by some meaningless "small government" restrictions

 

[rightwinger]

A Libertarian society would have OBJECTIVE LAWS. They would never demand that party "A" provide insurance to Party "B".

.

But as a member of our society, you would be faced with laws that do not meet your objectives. You can't always get what you want as a libertarian. How do you propose we deal with laws you do not agree with?

Again, OBJECTIVE LAWS protect our right to life, liberty , property and to pursue happiness.

I support those laws. If I don't agree with a particular law then it is become the law is not objective.

.

Many people have laws and government decisions that they do not agree with. It comes with the territory. I didn't agree with the decisions of the Supreme Court yesterday....but I am bound by them

 

[dblack]

But as a member of our society, you would be faced with laws that do not meet your objectives. You can't always get what you want as a libertarian. How do you propose we deal with laws you do not agree with?

Laws are laws - we all have to follow them whether we agree with them or not. That's why making sure those laws are just, and limited to situations where the conformity of law is truly necessary, is so important.

This is why I keep coming back to a clear understanding of the purpose of government and laws. The libertarian perspective is that government exists for the purpose of protecting our freedom and, as much as practical, should be limited to that function.
But you, and many others here, seem to see the government as kind of the all-purpose 'boss' of society - a tool for making any important decisions for society and then mandating conformity. That's what we libertarians reject.

As a libertarian, that is what you believe the purpose of government is limited to

As a citizen, you are free to vote for those who support your views. Other citizens who believe their government has wider responsibilities will vote for those who support their views

Personally, I want a government that does what needs doing, not one that is constrained by some meaningless "small government" restrictions

The powers of government aren't subject to majority rule. That's the point of a constitution - to establish the purpose and scope of government, and set clear limits on just what the majority is allowed to force on the minority. That's what makes consenting to democracy viable. Otherwise it's a blank check, and no sane person would agree to it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution was designed to protect all the people, which is exactly why they put in the checks and balances. They knew what happened to Greece and other pure democracies...........These systems failed in the end because of the tyranny of a simple majority of the people over the rest of the people. Well, that's part of it.

When the Dems gained all the control, they attempted to steam roll their liberal agenda through and they damn well succeed in pushing their ideologies on everyone. If it wasn't for the System in place and some Blue Dogs they would have succeeded.

They then claimed...............THE PEOPLE WILLED IT.....................No they did not...Even though you controlled all at the time you still only had a small victory in terms of the population of the United States. You forget that about 45% of the nation was telling you where you can shove your agenda.

Later your own side even went against you and you lost the house. The only reason you passed the ACA is because of Woodrow Wilson. Who changed the way Senators are selected. He took away the voice of the State Legislatures........And had that been in place, you would had a Snow Balls chance in hell passing it. Wilson understood it's much harder to buy off an Entire State than two Senators.............And now we have career politicians bought and paid for who back in the day would have been recalled for voting for the ACA..............

Your side should bow to his grave.

I believe the concepts and principles of the Constitution have been lost, and MUST be restored to save our nation from the final stages of Dependency. As we have learned that once we can get money from the coffers of the country there is no turning back.

The Founding Fathers Warned us about this and they called it USURY, and the Tyranny of the Majority.

Weird, you realize Madison objected to states selecting the Senators right?


“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace.” Samuel Adams


“As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard.” — Alexander Hamilton




“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men…” –John Adams



“Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science and manufactures.” Thomas Paine





Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

You realize Madison lost that argument, don't you?

How are we currently electing our Senators?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's not what I said and I'm not going to re-state what I really said.

You just posted that the primary purpose of the government is to enforce the will of the majority. The majority of California voted against same sex marriage. You opposed that, and and rejoiced when the government interfered in the will of the majority.

Deal with the fact that you are a liar, I already knew it.

Majority can't take away RIGHTS. Get a grip

No, actually it can, if you include super-majorities in the category of 'majority'. In fact, there is considerable conservative support for doing just that,

in the form of a constitutional 'life' amendment that would effectively end the right to an abortion that is now constitutionally protected.

 

[rightwinger]

Laws are laws - we all have to follow them whether we agree with them or not. That's why making sure those laws are just, and limited to situations where the conformity of law is truly necessary, is so important.

This is why I keep coming back to a clear understanding of the purpose of government and laws. The libertarian perspective is that government exists for the purpose of protecting our freedom and, as much as practical, should be limited to that function.
But you, and many others here, seem to see the government as kind of the all-purpose 'boss' of society - a tool for making any important decisions for society and then mandating conformity. That's what we libertarians reject.

As a libertarian, that is what you believe the purpose of government is limited to

As a citizen, you are free to vote for those who support your views. Other citizens who believe their government has wider responsibilities will vote for those who support their views

Personally, I want a government that does what needs doing, not one that is constrained by some meaningless "small government" restrictions

The powers of government aren't subject to majority rule. That's the point of a constitution - to establish the purpose and scope of government, and set clear limits on just what the majority is allowed to force on the minority. That's what makes consenting to democracy viable. Otherwise it's a blank check, and no sane person would agree to it.

We have three branches of government that keep those powers in check. That is how our Constitution functions