Modern American conservatism and libertarianism

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Foxfyre, Aug 19, 2019.

?

As an American conservative and/or libertarian I believe in (multiple choice):

  1. Individual liberty and the right to be who and what I am

    87.1%
  2. The right of states and communities to organize the societies they want

    77.4%
  3. Small, necessary, effective central government

    80.6%
  4. Defense of our language, borders, culture, and keeping the peace

    80.6%
  5. Right to self defense of our person, loved ones, property, community

    90.3%
  6. Equal right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness without contribution or participation by others.

    80.6%
  7. Free trade and market driven/capitalistic economy regulated only as absolutely necessary

    80.6%
  8. Elected representatives should make all laws affecting the people materially.

    54.8%
  9. Right to our thoughts, beliefs, principles without being threatened and/or assaulted.

    90.3%
  10. Courts that interpret existing law and do not make law.

    77.4%
  11. Free speech, a free press, freedom of association and religion.

    93.5%
  12. A society takes care of the truly helpless but requires responsibility/accountability

    77.4%
  13. A military strong enough to deter others from provoking us into using it.

    77.4%
  14. Integrity of the electoral process including positive ID to register to vote and to vote.

    80.6%
  15. Other that I will explain in my post.

    16.1%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry but I just don't see any of that in the big "L" Libertarians I have read, have listened to, or in the Libertarian platform.
     
  2. ImNotOliver

    ImNotOliver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    14,692
    Likes Received:
    6,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I lived in Westminster Colorado at the time the Libertarian Party was founded, the next neighborhood over.

    Colorado is rather unique in it's mountain culture. A lot of that mountain man toughness, that is more hippie than hillbilly. In the Appalachians they have their moonshine but the Rockies have their weed.

    Begining in the 70's, the Libertarians began to heavily market their message to the people of Colorado and began to make inroads into Colorado politics. Yet in a bait in switch tactic, those politicians who ran as Republicans, claiming to be Libertarians, went from the rhetoric of wide open sky freedoms that are part of the Colorado culture, and turned into the most destructive right wing kooks, giving Colorado an appearance of turning redder that it was.

    Most of the L(l)ibertarians that I run into tend to be up on the latest conspiracy theories. Of the more gung-ho ones, their homes and vehicles tend to stand out, and not in a complimentary way. They also tend to oppose abortion and same sex marriage, and worry about UFOs.

    The Libertarian Party began because its founders were upset that Nixon took the US off the gold standard. Conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve abound.

    It is often said that Libertarians are just conservatives who want to smoke pot and purchase the services of prostitutes.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  3. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That is helpful in regard to what you're considering as a big "L" libertarian. I would never consider the ACLU remotely libertarian. "Forcing" legalization of drugs isn't actually forcing anyone to do anything; It is stopping the government from restricting the liberty of individuals. It gets a little more complicated when you're talking about what government should be allowed to do in regard to religion, restriction of freedom, and the like. Just getting the government to abide by the letter of the Constitution would "force" legalization of drugs because the federal government never had that as a legitimate power.
     
  4. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree the federal government was given no authority over legalization of drugs in respect to what the various states do within their own borders. It however does have constitutional authority related to the general welfare to regulate the import of drugs into the country and the transport of drugs across state lines.

    As for the ACLU it was once a noble institution but it has become one infested with the worst of progressivim and the worst of Libertarianism (big "L") to the point that it is now self serving only and no longer the champion of human/civil rights that it once was. Fairly recently it went on record that it will no longer represent or advocate for any person or group that is in opposition to the ACLU's 'values' meaning that conservatives/libertarians can no longer expect the ACLU to be anything other than their adversary.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  5. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's quite incorrect - see the A4 guarantee clause.
     
  6. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Article 4 does not mandate how any state conduct its affairs but only that the federal government will defend its right to do so.
     
  7. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    16,275
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ever heard of ww1?
     
  8. EyesWideOpen

    EyesWideOpen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    4,743
    Likes Received:
    2,541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They have not been taught what the age of enlightenment was, and how, at the time of our founding as a nation, human civilization across the entire world, consisted of hierarchies and monarchies, where human servitude, peasants, serfs, indentured servants and slavery were the norm.
     
  9. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes. That was a time when national borders were disregarded and governments went to war with each other, killing huge numbers of people. What would WW1 have looked like if there hadn't been governments with borders? Just a bunch of people living, minding their own business, trading and working with their neighbors, etc.. You think without the governments involved at the time anyone would have cared that someone killed Archduke Ferdinand or that anyone would have wanted to kill the Archduke?
     
  10. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But also much that was creative, innovative, brave, and daring that advanced civilization from those things that we have learned to move away from and inspired and helped us move toward a better civilization. When education not only taught facts but also the ability to think critically and objectively evaluate opposing points of view, those educated were far less likely to judge previous generations and civilizations through a narrow prism of what is considered moral now. Understanding that moral values were different at other times is not conceding that they were okay, but it does help us not to judge people as evil who held different moral values.
     
  11. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    "General Welfare" doesn't mean anything without an enumerated power to direct it. If the feds had the right to restrict import of drugs in the 60s why did they need a Constitutional Amendment to restrict alcohol imports in the 20's?

    As for crossing state lines, that is an egregious government abuse of the commerce clause. The commerce clause was intended to insure fair and open trade between the States. It was not intended for the federal government to restrict or regulate what was being traded.

    Whatever the ACLU used to be, it is now an overtly Liberal, not Libertarian, organization. If it was remotely Libertarian it would support the entire Bill of Rights rather than just the few amendments it likes. Further, the extent to which a person or organization is libertarian (big or little "L") is defined by their adherence to the NAP. Everything else is secondary. The ACLU supports government force in some areas and is therefore not libertarian. Do you also consider the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) Libertarian?

    You might want to do a little research into actual (L)libertarianism. Here are a few resources if you're interested in correcting your misunderstanding of the difference between modern Liberals (ACLU, SPLC, etc.) and libertarians: cato.org, mises.org, tomwoods.com
     
  12. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have done my research, believe me, as well as paying attention to nationally reported court cases, etc. etc. etc. with some first hand local experience. So I know what the 'official propaganda' is as opposed to what is actually happening which is a good thing for all American patriots to be aware of regardless of what political group is pushing whatever.

    The constitutional amendment of the 20's was to prohibit the import, transport, sale, or use of alcoholic beverages by anybody in America, period. Which made it thoroughly an unconstitutional amendment had the intent and philosophy of the founders been considered. Any state has the ability to prohibit the import, transport, sale, or use of alcoholic beverages or any other substance within its own state lines, but that was not a power intended for the federal government to have. The federal government, however, did not need any kind of constitutional amendment to ban the import of alcoholic beverages as it has always had the ability to ban the import of anything that is coming from outside the USA.
     
  13. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If you've done your research you wouldn't be claiming the ACLU is any kind of libertarian organization, or that any truly libertarian organization is promoting authoritarian government rule.

    So you're saying everything the federal government has done in regard to recreational drugs except banning their importation has exceeded their authority? I don't think that is so but even if it were true, the "war on drugs" is/was a great deal more than merely banning imports.
     
  14. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did not claim that the ACLU was a Libertarian organization. It once did support libertarian principles. It no longer does.

    And I did not say that everything the federal government has done in regard to recreational drugs has exceeded their authority.

    Extrapolate into hyperbole much? We will get along better if you address what I actually say instead of what you might project into what I say.
     
  15. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You said "...The ACLU representing the large "L" Libertarians has amassed a small fortune...". How is that not claiming the ACLU is "Libertarian"
    You said, the Constitutional amendment in the 20s was to ban the "import, transport, sale or use of alcohol ..." but that it didn't need the amendment to ban importation. That is effectively saying the war on drugs, which has no such amendment, is the federal government exceeding its authority, except for the import ban which you claim the feds do have the authority to do.

    I responded to exactly what you said, as I understand it. If I've misunderstood what you meant when you said these things feel free to clarify your meaning.

    Possibly this descent into the minutia of illustrations and example isn't worthwhile so it might be better to re-center on the larger principles. My position is that libertarians in general have the objective of reducing government and increasing individual liberty. I believe that while some libertarians believe the way to do that is through the machinery of politics and government, their objective continues to be the reduction of government control and the increase of individual liberty. There are others who believe it is better to try to avoid or ignore government in all its aspects and try to live as free a life as possible without If there are people who call themselves libertarian but espouse authoritarian government control, they are manifestly not libertarian. I believe that the core of libertarian principle is the Non-Aggression Principle and whether you differentiate big or little L libertarian, if they don't adhere to the NAP, they aren't libertarian or Libertarian.

    I also recognize that libertarians are first and foremost, individuals and trying to get them to agree on pretty much anything is like herding cats. That means I fully expect any other libertarian leaning people reading this mini-manifesto to take exception to any or all of it. To be explicit, these are my views and possibly no one else's.
     
  16. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks for the weaselly strawman.
    No, it obligates the feds to guarantee a republican form of government to every state. Your interpretation is exceptionally asinine, seeing anarchy means no gov't at all.

    But perhaps you'd like to tell us what you understand about the clause that Madison didn't, seeing your interpretation of it is in stark opposition to his as enunciated in Federalist #43.
    What the feds thought they needed is less important than what the People, who ratified 18A, thought They needed - which, evidently, was not just to prohibit the sale of alcohol, but also to relieve Congress of any authority to do otherwise.
    So does driving a brucellosis-infested herd of cattle across state lines for sale pass for "fair and open trade" in your mind?
    The claim would not be utterly preposterous were such a requirement even implied anywhere in the Constitution. Things being what they are, it's high time you understood that they never intended to rule us from the grave.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2019
  17. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The federal government apparently thinks so. I didn't find anything on the USDA websites that indicated there were any federal rules for limiting brucellosis. The USDA website referred me to whatever laws and rules exist at the state level. This USDA site had this to say:

    "Before testing for interstate shipment, obtain specific State regulations by contacting the State animal health official’s office in the importing State. See appendix C for a list of addresses and telephone numbers of State animal health officials."

    Texas spent a lot of resources and time eradicating some strains of brucellosis in the past but currently it doesn't require any testing of cattle for the disease.

    Assuming you're in the market for a herd of cattle and you find one for sale in your state, do you buy it without determining the health of the animals in the herd? If there is no State requirement that the herd be tested and certified healthy, do you buy it without any assurances or documentation from the seller? Whether the cow(s) I buy come from my state or from out of state or out of country, I will require that the animal be documented healthy and disease free from the seller and/or a trusted vet. The government may require paperwork, though the feds apparently don't, but they're incapable of effectively establishing that an animal is disease free. Anyone trusting the federal government to protect them from buying diseased cattle is a fool. The buyer has to be responsible for his own purchasing decisions.

    To answer the question posed more directly; Yes, driving a herd of cattle across state lines for sale passes for fair and open trade in my mind. Its the responsibility of the buyer to insure he isn't being suckered into buying diseased cattle.
     
  18. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Representing somebody is not the same thing as being somebody. When I hire an attorney to represent me, he does not become me or part of my organization. He is providing a service which by nature of his representation makes him an advocate only in the issue he is hired to represent me.
     
  19. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'm not clear on how this statement relates to anything I've posted on this thread but I do agree with it in general.
     
  20. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You sure as hell didn't look very hard.
    One quote mining deserves another. From the same damn page:

    The regulations of APHIS’ Brucellosis Eradication Program vary on the basis of the brucellosis status in each State. Minimum standards are set forth in the Brucellosis Eradication Uniform Methods and Rules, a publication distributed by VS. Some States have more restrictive requirements. [...]​
    Since when is the underlined a synonym for "evade"?
    And the seller, knowing those cattle can bankrupt the buyer, to say nothing of the neighboring ranchers, has no responsibility to inform the buyer that what he's selling is worse than defective. Right?
     
  21. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How hard should I look for information about your obscure example, given that I did answer your question.
    My explicit answer to the question was "Yes". How is that evasion? You might want to get some help with basic reading comprehension.
    This would depend on the deal being made. If you buy a pig in a poke, you're responsible for the result. If you buy a herd of cattle that is being represented as healthy that is actually diseased, the seller may be subject to civil or criminal action as that may constitute fraud or criminal malfeasance. If the buyer fails to get any documentation regarding the health of the animals legal action would be less likely as documentation might be required, to prove intent . These things are so whether or not there is federal or state regulation of the cattle market. I wouldn't consider fraud, theft or malfeasance as legitimate parts of any free market and I don't know anyone who would.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2019
  22. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding.
    lol
    No, your explicit answer was:

    To answer the question posed more directly; Yes, driving a herd of cattle across state lines for sale passes for fair and open trade in my mind.​

    So by omitting the salient qualifier, you answered the question you found it convenient to answer rather than the one you were asked.
    lol
    Would that your own deficiency were so simply remedied.
    lol
    You know damn well no such possibility is implied in the question, so thanks for the weaselly attempt to poison the well.
    Then given that "[t]he commerce clause was intended to insure fair and open trade between the States[]", it should be perfectly clear that Congress is constitutionally empowered to make all laws necessary and proper to ensure that interstate commerce does not include the transport of brucellosis-infested cattle across state lines.
     
  23. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your qualifier isn't salient, its irrelevant. The commerce clause doesn't enforce your qualifier and even if it did, does that mean it would be fair and open trade to sell a brucellosis infected herd of cattle if you don't have to cross state lines to do it? To be more explicit for those who aren't capable of understanding nuance; Yes, it would be fair and open trade to drive a herd of brucellosis infected cattle across state lines to sell to a buyer in another state. If the buyer, whether in another state or the same state, doesn't do his due diligence then he would have to suffer the consequences. That might mean he goes out of business or has to sue the seller for breach of contract. Unless the buyer does due diligence neither the State nor the Feds would normally be involved. Alternatively, not knowing the intentions of the seller or the buyer of the infected cattle, you or the government, wouldn't be able to determine if there was any malfeasance or fraud. What if the buyer wanted an infected herd so he could test a possible cure or vaccine? Would the government (that doesn't do preemptive testing for brucellosis) stop the sale?
    So not evasion. We were discussing an infected herd. Leaving off the specific infection didn't change that, it merely made it more open ended. What if the cattle were infected with some other disease? Would that change the discussion?
    Your lack of comprehension is no deficiency on my part.
    Lack of cognitive ability noted.
    Again, lack of cognitive ability noted. The question requires the assumption that the buyer is not protecting himself from the potential fraud or malfeasance of the seller . "A pig in a poke" is a common analogy that fits this scenario perfectly. If a buyer buys an infected herd of cattle, whether interstate or intrastate, without establishing their health, they're buying a pig in a poke. If the buyer is relying on the government at any level to protect him from his lack of diligence, he's an idiot.
    Congress is empowered to do whatever tortured interpretations of the Constitution allow. That's how they came to be able to regulate activities that were not commerce and were not interstate (Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)). This paper argues that the commerce clause was meant to allow the federal government to insure that trade wasn't restricted between the states, as happened under the Articles of Confederation, where States were placing taxes and tariffs on goods moving between the States, but left the enforcement of restrictions or limitations to trade to the States.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2019
  24. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's certainly irrelevant as viewed through the lens of your intellectually bankrupt interpretation of the commerce clause.
    Actually, by your own testimony it does.
    Doesn't matter, obviously, since that's not interstate commerce.
    While it is sadly possible that you are oblivious to your own weaselly dissembling, rest assured it does not escape the notice of this observer.
    Then the obvious question would be why the hell he's paying for livestock that's worth less than nothing in a free and fair market; but if he is, he'll be happy to comply with reasonable containment measures. If he isn't, the commerce clause doesn't apply.
    Prove it.
    How the hell should I know? I'm not the one who presumed to hold forth on USDA regulations, not knowing what the hell I was talking about.
    lol
    Get real, you left out the fact of the infection entirely.
    Technically that's true, in the same sense that a newborn babe in the woods "fails to protect itself" from the wolves; but of course you focus on that so as to remain oblivious to the requirement of fraudulent intent on the part of the seller - to say nothing of the potential harm to utterly innocent third parties.
     
  25. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Its worth noting you think original intent of the commerce clause is "bankrupt interpretation".
    No, it doesn't. The original intent of the commerce clause was to stop states from restricting or taxing commerce with other states in the union. It wasn't intended for the federal government to take control of every aspect of production and trade as it has done. "Testimony"?
    According to current federal excess, anything that could potentially effect interstate commerce can be controlled under the commerce clause. Since you apparently didn't bother to look at any of my references, in the 1930s the supreme court found that a farmer growing fodder for his own use on his own land was subject to the interstate commerce clause. Your reference to my "testimony" must be based on your lack of ability to understand the difference between what the government does, through tortured interpretation and what it should do based on original intent.
    That goes to the extremely deficient observation skills. What could I have said that was more explicitly responsive to your question: 'So does driving a brucellosis-infested herd of cattle across state lines for sale pass for "fair and open trade" in your mind?' with: 'Yes, driving a herd of cattle across state lines for sale passes for fair and open trade in my mind.' and then because of your poor comprehension skills: 'Yes, it would be fair and open trade to drive a herd of brucellosis infected cattle across state lines to sell to a buyer in another state.'. Your mischaracterization of my answers as "weaselly" is a pathetic attempt to impeach my argument without actually providing a rebuttal. Sad, really.
    You might think that question is obvious but anyone with a bit of economic understanding would recognize that value is subjective and what any person actually values is only determined by his actions. That is, if a buyer knowingly buys a herd of infected cattle it would necessarily mean that he valued what he bought more than what he paid. Are "reasonable containment measures" anything a government entity at any level decides to impose? How much do you love your nanny state and its control over the people?
    Previously linked. According to the USDA documentation Brucellosis has been mostly eradicated (by State efforts) and therefore testing for it is not normally required.
    You're the one arguing for control by government. If its the government's responsibility to protect you from buying a Brucellosis infected herd of cattle, but they don't stop the sale of such a herd, what is the point of the government or its regulations?
    Clearly not evasion on my part but your "lol" does seem a bit "weaselly".
    Left any restriction on the condition of the commodity, which allowed a much broader view, including but not limited to Brucellosis infection. In context I also addressed the possibility of diseased cattle in the following sentence re: "Its the responsibility of the buyer to insure he isn't being suckered into buying diseased cattle."
    [sarcasm]Sure, farmers buying cattle are newborn babes in the woods that must be protected from "wolves" by their nanny government or they and all their friends will be eaten up. No farmer or rancher could possibly know they should take any precautions against the possibility of diseased animals unless the government tells them to.[/sarcasm] You may be a babe in the woods that needs the nanny state to wipe his bottom and give him his bottle but responsible adults view most government as unnecessary impediments.
     

Share This Page