What are libertarians?

[Mindful]

Yeah, I've read all that. I researched it once, and found some glaring inconsistencies in the popular narrative.

That would be the second time that you have mentioned such.

The class is still waiting for you to share though.

Sounds too confrontationary. Like I'm attacking you or something.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah, I've read all that. I researched it once, and found some glaring inconsistencies in the popular narrative.

That would be the second time that you have mentioned such.

The class is still waiting for you to share though.

Sounds too confrontationary. Like I'm attacking you or something.

Its not an attack. Its a statement of fact - you have claimed to have something worth discussing but you only seem to want to find an excuse to not discuss it.

I don't understand why you are here then. If you have something then point it out. If not then we will just move on but quite frankly I tire of trying to engage you in conversation. You don't really seem like you want to bother with it.

 

[Mindful]

Yeah, I've read all that. I researched it once, and found some glaring inconsistencies in the popular narrative.

That would be the second time that you have mentioned such.

The class is still waiting for you to share though.

Sounds too confrontationary. Like I'm attacking you or something.

Its not an attack. Its a statement of fact - you have claimed to have something worth discussing but you only seem to want to find an excuse to not discuss it.

I don't understand why you are here then. If you have something then point it out. If not then we will just move on but quite frankly I tire of trying to engage you in conversation. You don't really seem like you want to bother with it.

Let me ask you this. It's easy to impose our present day context and philosophies onto the past. Do you think those early FF's were driven by such considerations as you mention during those historic times?

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah, I've read all that. I researched it once, and found some glaring inconsistencies in the popular narrative.

That would be the second time that you have mentioned such.

The class is still waiting for you to share though.

Sounds too confrontationary. Like I'm attacking you or something.

Its not an attack. Its a statement of fact - you have claimed to have something worth discussing but you only seem to want to find an excuse to not discuss it.

I don't understand why you are here then. If you have something then point it out. If not then we will just move on but quite frankly I tire of trying to engage you in conversation. You don't really seem like you want to bother with it.

Let me ask you this. It's easy to impose our present day context and philosophies onto the past. Do you think those early FF's were driven by such considerations as you mention during those historic times?

If you are talking about the reasons that I stated they came here earlier, of course. Otherwise, why would I have made the statements?

I don't see how that applies to 'applying our present day context and philosophies' to them though. Those conditions no longer exist.

 

[Mindful]

Yeah, I've read all that. I researched it once, and found some glaring inconsistencies in the popular narrative.

That would be the second time that you have mentioned such.

The class is still waiting for you to share though.

Sounds too confrontationary. Like I'm attacking you or something.

Its not an attack. Its a statement of fact - you have claimed to have something worth discussing but you only seem to want to find an excuse to not discuss it.

I don't understand why you are here then. If you have something then point it out. If not then we will just move on but quite frankly I tire of trying to engage you in conversation. You don't really seem like you want to bother with it.

Let me ask you this. It's easy to impose our present day context and philosophies onto the past. Do you think those early FF's were driven by such considerations as you mention during those historic times?

If you are talking about the reasons that I stated they came here earlier, of course. Otherwise, why would I have made the statements?

I don't see how that applies to 'applying our present day context and philosophies' to them though. Those conditions no longer exist.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah, I've read all that. I researched it once, and found some glaring inconsistencies in the popular narrative.

That would be the second time that you have mentioned such.

The class is still waiting for you to share though.

Sounds too confrontationary. Like I'm attacking you or something.

Its not an attack. Its a statement of fact - you have claimed to have something worth discussing but you only seem to want to find an excuse to not discuss it.

I don't understand why you are here then. If you have something then point it out. If not then we will just move on but quite frankly I tire of trying to engage you in conversation. You don't really seem like you want to bother with it.

Let me ask you this. It's easy to impose our present day context and philosophies onto the past. Do you think those early FF's were driven by such considerations as you mention during those historic times?

If you are talking about the reasons that I stated they came here earlier, of course. Otherwise, why would I have made the statements?

I don't see how that applies to 'applying our present day context and philosophies' to them though. Those conditions no longer exist.

.....

Your comment seems to be blank?

 

[Mindful]

Well yes, exactly. I see a lot of quoting John Locke and others. Which aroused my initial interest in this topic. Someone said the FF's were liberals or libertarians.

I still think the founding fathers derived their political choices from their roots, English law.

 

[Mindful]

Yeah, I've read all that. I researched it once, and found some glaring inconsistencies in the popular narrative.

That would be the second time that you have mentioned such.

The class is still waiting for you to share though.

Sounds too confrontationary. Like I'm attacking you or something.

Its not an attack. Its a statement of fact - you have claimed to have something worth discussing but you only seem to want to find an excuse to not discuss it.

I don't understand why you are here then. If you have something then point it out. If not then we will just move on but quite frankly I tire of trying to engage you in conversation. You don't really seem like you want to bother with it.

Let me ask you this. It's easy to impose our present day context and philosophies onto the past. Do you think those early FF's were driven by such considerations as you mention during those historic times?

If you are talking about the reasons that I stated they came here earlier, of course. Otherwise, why would I have made the statements?

I don't see how that applies to 'applying our present day context and philosophies' to them though. Those conditions no longer exist.

.....

Your comment seems to be blank?

I'm having trouble with the site. Bad gateway. And our time zones are incompatible for consistent dialogue, sometimes too late at night for me to sustain. It's also the kind of argument best suited to face to face and not text based. So I'd better leave it at that.

 

[Bfgrn]

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us. Most things, we are capable of doing ourselves. But garnering the forces of a large community to do what is best for the whole community makes us stronger.
Limiting government to the vision of an 18th century bureaucrat does not make for a great nation

Our founding fathers and Thomas Jefferson in particular said the exact same thing. And Abe Lincoln addressed your last point.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

 

[Bfgrn]

Well yes, exactly. I see a lot of quoting John Locke and others. Which aroused my initial interest in this topic. Someone said the FF's were liberals or libertarians.

I still think the founding fathers derived their political choices from their roots, English law.

Why You Wouldn’t Find Any Libertarians in 1776

Libertarian psychology would have been even more indigestible to the 18th century mind than libertarian politics. Libertarianism argues that each individual should enjoy the widest possible scope to live as he or she thinks best. It’s an attractive ideal, one widely shared by 21st century people. Modern liberals share the libertarian commitment to “autonomy,” as this ideal is generally called – they just disagree about the institutions needed to support autonomy.

But to an American of the Founding generation, the ideal of autonomy would have contradicted four of the most fundamental physical and psychic facts of life:

• Latinity
• Calvinism
• material scarcity and
• slaveholding

Let’s take them in turn…

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

FrumForum

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals know all about family. When liberals were in power we didn't have to hide behind phrases like 'family values', it was just family. People made a living wage and one income could support a FAMILY, so mothers could stay at home and raise children.

Terrific, bring back those times and I'll become a liberal.

So you would support a living wage?

I'm all for a living wage, depending on how it's defined.

I suppose could apply 'living document' logic here ...

The Constitution is a basic framework for government.

 

[kaz]

Limiting government to the vision of an 18th century bureaucrat does not make for a great nation

Our founding fathers and Thomas Jefferson in particular said the exact same thing. And Abe Lincoln addressed your last point.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

You idiots won't give up this strawman. No one ever said the Constitution can't change. In fact, it has been legitimately changed many times through history. They are called Constitutional Amendments. Here is the question for you two to attempt to see through your dim fog of stupidity. The question is HOW it is changed.

What the Constitution says: 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate and then it goes to State legislatures where 3/4 need to ratify.

What you say: The legislature can do it any time they want, and the courts even moreso.

How is it possible at this point you still don't even grasp what is being discussed? You have both well earned the title, Simpleton.

 

[Bfgrn]

Limiting government to the vision of an 18th century bureaucrat does not make for a great nation

Our founding fathers and Thomas Jefferson in particular said the exact same thing. And Abe Lincoln addressed your last point.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

You idiots won't give up this strawman. No one ever said the Constitution can't change. In fact, it has been legitimately changed many times through history. They are called Constitutional Amendments. Here is the question for you two to attempt to see through your dim fog of stupidity. The question is HOW it is changed.

What the Constitution says: 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate and then it goes to State legislatures where 3/4 need to ratify.

What you say: The legislature can do it any time they want, and the courts even moreso.

How is it possible at this point you still don't even grasp what is being discussed? You have both well earned the title, Simpleton.

A 'framework' doesn't need to be changed.

Jefferson, Adams and Madison address WHAT the role of government IS...

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

 

[dblack]

Limiting government to the vision of an 18th century bureaucrat does not make for a great nation

Our founding fathers and Thomas Jefferson in particular said the exact same thing. And Abe Lincoln addressed your last point.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

You idiots won't give up this strawman. No one ever said the Constitution can't change. In fact, it has been legitimately changed many times through history. They are called Constitutional Amendments. Here is the question for you two to attempt to see through your dim fog of stupidity. The question is HOW it is changed.

What the Constitution says: 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate and then it goes to State legislatures where 3/4 need to ratify.

What you say: The legislature can do it any time they want, and the courts even moreso.

How is it possible at this point you still don't even grasp what is being discussed? You have both well earned the title, Simpleton.

A 'framework' doesn't need to be changed.

Jefferson, Adams and Madison address WHAT the role of government IS...

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

Are you trying to make an argument for unlimited government?

 

[Foxfyre]

Limiting government to the vision of an 18th century bureaucrat does not make for a great nation

Our founding fathers and Thomas Jefferson in particular said the exact same thing. And Abe Lincoln addressed your last point.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

You idiots won't give up this strawman. No one ever said the Constitution can't change. In fact, it has been legitimately changed many times through history. They are called Constitutional Amendments. Here is the question for you two to attempt to see through your dim fog of stupidity. The question is HOW it is changed.

What the Constitution says: 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate and then it goes to State legislatures where 3/4 need to ratify.

What you say: The legislature can do it any time they want, and the courts even moreso.

How is it possible at this point you still don't even grasp what is being discussed? You have both well earned the title, Simpleton.

A 'framework' doesn't need to be changed.

Jefferson, Adams and Madison address WHAT the role of government IS...

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

Are you trying to make an argument for unlimited government?

Good luck in getting him to make an argument on his own at all. He's very good at finding stuff to cut and paste and put together whether or not he understands what he is arguing though.

But yes, most of those who have never studied the founding documents and who have been schooled in the 'living Constitution', i.e. it can be whatever we want it to be, school of thought, invariably resort to the tired argument that the Founders were old white guys way back then and are irrelevant for us here and now.

It goes back to my previous argument that libertarians (little "L") hold to a conviction, a belief in, a principle of, a concept of liberty that the Founders built into the Constitution. It is a concept that a free people are blessed with God given rights (or natural rights if you don't believe in God) and that great blessings are given to and proceed from a people who have their rights secured and then are left alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have.

It is a concept that government is given its authority by the people, not the other way around. It is a concept that people are not free if their rights are assigned to them via dictator or monarch or pope or other totalitarian authority.

It is a concept that the role of the U.S. government is to enact sufficient laws and regulation to secure our rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and not do physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other. Toward that end the U.S. government provides the common defense and promotes the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare without regard for class or socioeconomic status or political affiliations.

Principles don't change. The principles embraced by the Founders have not changed. All that has changed is an American public that no longer is taught those principles and too many no longer embrace them. We have too many who have been taught to believe that the role of government is to do for the people whatever they don't and will not do for themselves. And it is that which will bring us down.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.

Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.

I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I came to discern what the difference might be between "libertarian" and "liberal", which is apparently that the latter is a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age ******".

Nice people, these "libertarians". Nice place to visit but I don't wanna live there.

The difference between a minarchist libertarian, as kaz laid out in his original post, and a modern day liberal is that while the libertarian sees an expressly limited role for the state, the liberal seeks to expand the powers of the state to include the role of creating a more egalitarian society. Many modern liberals today also see a role for the state in foreign adventurism. Libya, Iraq, and Syria, for example.

What you're describing isn't "Liberalism". Sorry, a post on the internets and a blowhard on the radio saying so don't actually make it so.

In a discussion, it would make sense for you to counter something the other party says that you disagree with with what you believe the truth to be. I'm not sure what "blowhard on the radio" you're referring to, but I felt that my explanation of liberalism was quite fair and even-handed. If you disagree then perhaps you could define liberalism yourself and contrast it with your view on libertarianism and we could move the discussion forward.

Sure, that's what I've tried to do while getting shouted down (by others, not you).

Liberalism has nothing to do with "expanding the power of the State". That's probably best described as "statism" if I understand that term. Liberalism if anything works the opposite way, sees government as kind of a referee. A ref doesn't actually play in the game, he just makes sure the rules are followed. As for "creating a more egalitarian society", while egalitarianism may be a Liberal ideal, it doesn't see an active role in effecting that. Such an active role in that direction is more properly leftism. Liberal by contrast is a passive approach.

My go-to example is that to declare "all men are created equal" is Liberalism; to employ government to make that happen via Affirmative Action is leftism. So that's what that means. And thanks for asking, it's so rare around here.

On what basis do you differentiate between "leftist" and "liberal?" Most people understand these terms to be referring to the same thing, much like "right-wing" and "conservative."

They're in no way the same thing, and I meant to finish the thought but got interrupted by business on the phone --

- my reference to "radio blowhards" meant a metaphorical catch-all for the dumb-down media that tries to conflate these terms as if they actually are synonyms. They're not. "Da liburruls" this, "da luburruls" that, are naught but demagoguic psychobabble designed to demonize not actual Liberals but those demagogues' opponents, i.e. Democrats, which is really what they mean by perverting the word Liberal.

That linguistic perversion attempt began IMO in the Red Scare daze when "socialism" and "communism" emerged (read: were demagoguically engineered) as terms of scurrilous depravity for reasons both real and imagined, when Republicans like Joe McCarthy, as dishonest a demagogue as ever kissed the Blarney Stone (and himself a former Democrat), began associating the word "Liberal" with those despised terms and pointing them at Democrats. That made no sense in word-definition terms, but it wasn't intended to -- it was simply an appeal-to-emotion cheap shot put in place for no higher motive than self-serving political power grabbing. It was nothing but a partisan political rhetoric snow job and at heart aimed at nothing but a political party.

That snow job was given another shot in the arm notably in 1988 by Lee Atwater in the Bush Presidential campaign against Dukakis, where he had the elder Bush snarling "liberal" at Dukakis as if a dirty word. The same appeal to dumbed-down emotion snowjobbery for the purpose of political gain; the unwashed are supposed to think, "well, I'm not sure what a 'liberal' is but the way he's using it, it must be baaad...". Shortly after that (1990 if memory serves) Lush Rimjob began his ongoing national broadcast tirades (and begat countless imitators) all using the same tactic as they worked tirelessly to dumb-down the political landscape of this country as if it were a simple dichotomy of "us" and "them". You can't have a dichotomy with more than two sides, so "left" and "liberal" and "Democrat", which are three different things, got merged into a single simple lump of rhetorical goo. "Right" and "conservative" and "Republican" followed in mirror image, even though they too are three different things. The fact is there are both liberals and conservatives on the left and there are both liberals and conservatives on the right, and they may be Republicans, Democrats or neither one.

The political spectrum clearly is not definable by a two-dimensional left-right linear graph. Playing that game only plays into the great snow job. I like to run the snow plow. Those who ignore their own history and all that.

​

Sorry, I get longwinded. But I usually get shouted down, so that's a step forward. Thanks KK.

So can you give us a definition of each term and how it's differentiated from the others? How specifically is a leftist different from a liberal? And can you explain a conservative leftist? While I think that you're correct in saying that the left-right paradigm is left wanting, most people are perfectly comfortable with using it today, including self-professed liberals and conservatives. They have no issue referring to themselves as being on the left for liberals or being on the right for conservatives. In other words, it's a near universally accepted categorization in the U.S. Now I see how one could be a conservative and not a member of the Republican Party, or a liberal not a member of the Democratic Party, but I'll need a clear understanding of how you're using the terms "leftist" and "liberal" differently than seemingly the rest of the country.

 

[Bfgrn]

Limiting government to the vision of an 18th century bureaucrat does not make for a great nation

Our founding fathers and Thomas Jefferson in particular said the exact same thing. And Abe Lincoln addressed your last point.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

You idiots won't give up this strawman. No one ever said the Constitution can't change. In fact, it has been legitimately changed many times through history. They are called Constitutional Amendments. Here is the question for you two to attempt to see through your dim fog of stupidity. The question is HOW it is changed.

What the Constitution says: 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate and then it goes to State legislatures where 3/4 need to ratify.

What you say: The legislature can do it any time they want, and the courts even moreso.

How is it possible at this point you still don't even grasp what is being discussed? You have both well earned the title, Simpleton.

A 'framework' doesn't need to be changed.

Jefferson, Adams and Madison address WHAT the role of government IS...

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

Are you trying to make an argument for unlimited government?

Good luck in getting him to make an argument on his own at all. He's very good at finding stuff to cut and paste and put together whether or not he understands what he is arguing though.

But yes, most of those who have never studied the founding documents and who have been schooled in the 'living Constitution', i.e. it can be whatever we want it to be, school of thought, invariably resort to the tired argument that the Founders were old white guys way back then and are irrelevant for us here and now.

It goes back to my previous argument that libertarians (little "L") hold to a conviction, a belief in, a principle of, a concept of liberty that the Founders built into the Constitution. It is a concept that a free people are blessed with God given rights (or natural rights if you don't believe in God) and that great blessings are given to and proceed from a people who have their rights secured and then are left alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have.

It is a concept that government is given its authority by the people, not the other way around. It is a concept that people are not free if their rights are assigned to them via dictator or monarch or pope or other totalitarian authority.

It is a concept that the role of the U.S. government is to enact sufficient laws and regulation to secure our rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and not do physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other. Toward that end the U.S. government provides the common defense and promotes the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare without regard for class or socioeconomic status or political affiliations.

Principles don't change. The principles embraced by the Founders have not changed. All that has changed is an American public that no longer is taught those principles and too many no longer embrace them. We have too many who have been taught to believe that the role of government is to do for the people whatever they don't and will not do for themselves. And it is that which will bring us down.

Ironic, you copy and paste false and out of context quotes of our founders and have the nerve to criticize.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I wrote an ebook, Libertarianism, the UK Big Bang, and How They ruined America. Libertarianism is evil in the underside of its assumptions. Its god is self. And its liberty is dark and exclusive.

And there you have it folks, Mr. Anderson has spoken. No explanation necessary, apparently.

 

[dblack]

I wrote an ebook, Libertarianism, the UK Big Bang, and How They ruined America. Libertarianism is evil in the underside of its assumptions. Its god is self. And its liberty is dark and exclusive.

I've never really thought of myself as 'dark and elusive'. Sounds exciting!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well yes, exactly. I see a lot of quoting John Locke and others. Which aroused my initial interest in this topic. Someone said the FF's were liberals or libertarians.

I still think the founding fathers derived their political choices from their roots, English law.

Why You Wouldn’t Find Any Libertarians in 1776

Libertarian psychology would have been even more indigestible to the 18th century mind than libertarian politics. Libertarianism argues that each individual should enjoy the widest possible scope to live as he or she thinks best. It’s an attractive ideal, one widely shared by 21st century people. Modern liberals share the libertarian commitment to “autonomy,” as this ideal is generally called – they just disagree about the institutions needed to support autonomy.

But to an American of the Founding generation, the ideal of autonomy would have contradicted four of the most fundamental physical and psychic facts of life:

• Latinity
• Calvinism
• material scarcity and
• slaveholding

Let’s take them in turn…

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

FrumForum

Ayn Rand certainly shared many similarities to libertarians, and many differences, but her ideology of "Objectivism" goes further than libertarianism in that it describes itself as a complete moral philosophy. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that prioritizes non-aggression and individual rights. And of course Ayn Rand speaks only for herself and Objectivism, so to use her as a caricature of libertarians is dishonest and wrong. If you'd like to address actual libertarians, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Hoppe, Block, then feel free.