Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[Dad2three]

Found this today and thought it was very profound:

Or millionaire Bill Clinton who was not rich when he entered public office but is rich now (making one wonder...), who deducted $50 a pair for used underwear?






Yeah, paragons of virtue Democrats are. I see why you're all over that.

A lie repeated enough by right wingers doesn't make it true


On his 1986 return, Bill Clinton deducted $6 for three pairs of underwear


Clinton Taxes Laid Bare, Line by Line - NYTimes.com

 

[Dad2three]

You're confusing libertarians with liberals.

Okay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.

But we can keep it simple.

Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.

Conservatism - Every man for himself!



NOW WHICH DID THE FOUNDERS CHOOSE?

Right, because of course wanting to keep money you earned is greed, wanting money earned by others isn't.

Personal charity isn't helping people, government confiscation is.

That's what all your crap boils down to. Every time we go more your way, it gets worse, and all you say is that means we didn't do enough of what you want. Given the trillions and trillions we've spent on the social safety net without denting poverty rates, a rational mind would contemplate other solutions. A Marxist mind would bury us in rhetoric. You've chosen to bury us in rhetoric, of course.

The right wing arguments against the War on Poverty always boil down to: See, these programs that we have underfunded or cut back or otherwise hobbled don't work now that we have broken them. So give more money to rich people!


"Here, let me show why this social program you like is so dysfunctional because we gutted funding for it, so now it should be stopped because obviously government doesn't work."


Social security keeps half of seniors out of poverty. Horrible



Study: U.S. poverty rate decreased over past half-century thanks to safety-net programs


According to the new research, the safety net helped reduce the percentage of Americans in poverty from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012. The results were especially striking during the most recent economic downturn, when the poverty rate barely budged despite a massive increase in unemployment.

While the government has helped keep poverty at bay, the economy by itself has failed to improve the lives of the very poor over the past 50 years. Without taking into account the role of government policy, more Americans — 29 percent — would be in poverty today, compared with 27 percent in 1967.


Study: U.S. poverty rate decreased over past half-century thanks to safety-net programs - The Washington Post

 

[rightwinger]

That's simply an unsupported insult and a lie, and you know better.



It's whining about the "blank check" authority that you want to give to democratic rule. It's insane and short sighted. If it holds sway, we'll all come to regret it.

There is no "blank check"

That is why we have checks and balances between our branches of government and a court system to protect the rights of the minority

Exactly, and those checks and balances work by enforcing constitutional limits on the power of the majority. But you keep arguing against such limitations. Are you schizophrenic?

Interesting

Where have I argued against our Constitutional system?

 

[Dad2three]

"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

And now show how what he meant were Marxist, redistribution of wealth schemes.

Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html




If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers



The Founders on Taxation, Redistribution, and Property



...In short, leading figures of the Revolutionary generation, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, were convinced that a republic can only exist if property is broadly distributed throughout the citizenry and that great inequalities were dangerous.


The Founders on Taxation, Redistribution, and Property


WALTON FAMILIES HAVE MORE WEALTH THAN THE BOTTOM 40%+ OF US

 

[Dad2three]

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".

.

Weird how a libertarian society has NEVER worked right? MYTHS AND FAIRY TALES...

 

[dblack]

There is no "blank check"

That is why we have checks and balances between our branches of government and a court system to protect the rights of the minority

Exactly, and those checks and balances work by enforcing constitutional limits on the power of the majority. But you keep arguing against such limitations. Are you schizophrenic?

Interesting

Where have I argued against our Constitutional system?

Are you equivocating? Talking out both sides of your mouth? Or just flinging bullshit because you can't handle actual discourse?

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Yeah, that's why the Founders got rid of the states rights thing for the STRONG federal Gov't US Constitution. Libertarians believe in myths and fairy tales, nothing more

 

[Dad2three]

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.

More crap, SCOTUS is there to decide the LIMITS of the Constitution...

 

[rightwinger]

Exactly, and those checks and balances work by enforcing constitutional limits on the power of the majority. But you keep arguing against such limitations. Are you schizophrenic?

Interesting

Where have I argued against our Constitutional system?

Are you equivocating? Talking out both sides of your mouth? Or just flinging bullshit because you can't handle actual discourse?

Interesting

Where have I argued against our Constitutional system

 

[NYcarbineer]

So.... it's better for the oligarchy to own the government than for the government to work for the People against the monopolizing power and wealth of the oligarchy?

Strawman, no one said that

Libertarianism is a moderate system where employers, employees, suppliers, consumers, investors and all other market players come together as equals, no one has advantage over the others. If employers don't treat their employers well or don't pay them enough, employees are free to find better jobs. If suppliers do not treat their customers right, they are free to walk across the street to their competition.

.

Wanting to end Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is not a moderate position.

Consumers and employees are not equals vs. corporations once you taken government out of the picture;

that is why government got into the picture in the first place.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Take that up with the guy that says the majority is always right, not me. Or are you so stupid you think I support taking away rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Keep telling yourself that. The more people learn about, the more people hate it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The Constitutions has nothing to do with the will of the majority, idiot. It is designed to restrict the role of the federal government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Bingo.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

How is that relevant? Does it change the fact that Madison lost the argument when he made it?

 

[kaz]

Interesting

Where have I argued against our Constitutional system?

Are you equivocating? Talking out both sides of your mouth? Or just flinging bullshit because you can't handle actual discourse?

Interesting

Where have I argued against our Constitutional system

Everywhere, you want to subvert it

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Someone who is moderately Libertarian might qualify as a moderate,

but the true believers, the ideologues of Libertarianism,

are extremists.

Isn't that the definition of "extremists" for ANY ideology?

Not if you're ideologically a Moderate.

If you read the Libertarian Party platform, you see plenty of extreme positions, on guns for example, or on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs, but,

when you confront self-identifying Libertarians with these extremist positions the usual response is well, the platform doesn't necessarily represent Libertarians, so my conclusion is, if you can't define a Libertarian, you can't define Libertarianism as Moderate.

I suppose Democrats are all moderates.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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.

The Constitutions has nothing to do with the will of the majority, idiot. It is designed to restrict the role of the federal government.

BOOYA qft.. this needs to stated more often..

 

[Dad2three]

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

Take that up with the guy that says the majority is always right, not me. Or are you so stupid you think I support taking away rights?

Got it, You'll stick to argue false premises

 

[Dad2three]

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

Keep telling yourself that. The more people learn about, the more people hate it.

Sure, and single payer H/C in EVERY industrialized nation is failing too? That's why the opponents of it can't come up with ONE poll EVER that ANY nation with UHC wants to get rid of it or get US style H/C...lol