Why the HELL are you NOT a Libertarian?, page 16

reply to post by endisnighe

---

40% Wow... When you read statistics saying income tax of 40% for anyone making over $250,000(example) you think, well they have the money to afford that, maybe they should stop buying so many things. Whenever I thought of 40% taxes i think of corporate elite, not hard working men and women doing an honest days work.

40% of $250,000 is $100,000. That leaves a person with $150,000. Then you minus all other taxes and you leave that guy probably with $100,000 from his $250,000. To be honest, I never really thought of it that way, I just always hated the rich elite because where I grew up if you weren't rich you were treated like trash and nobody really gave to charities.

When I went to visit my family up in PA last Christmas my uncle took bottles of alcohol to all these small business people and I asked him why he was doing that and he said because they take care of him all year(giving him discounts, no cost fixes to his car, etc...). Where I come from people don't do that. You shop at Wal-Mart, collect welfare and have kids. And the rich didn't give to charity and treated everyone else like trash.

But I began to have second thoughts about people when I went up to PA and saw simple ordinary people doing something they don't have to do just to help another person. It was like entering an alternate universe.

Now you have made me reconsider things, I hate sounding like a flip-flopper.

reply to post by Misoir

---

I was only making 80-100k a year. Depending on the year end bonus.

So after all the different tax schemes, the last year I was there, I figured the money I received was about 40k after all the taxes. The gross being 95k.

Heck, I paid $350 for registration of my truck the last year I was in California.

People do not realize what the taxation is on people in the 50-250k taxation bracket is. The government is wiping out the middle class. The uber rich do not pay taxes really. They do not get paid salaries. That is why they talk about those bonuses. They do not pay the income tax, ss tax etc etc. They set it up as partnerships and the like. I know, when I ran my business I paid myself $1/year. I only received my profit through the limited liability corp.

There are all kinds of tricks in accounting to not have to pay taxes.

That is why I always state that individuals should not be taxed on their labor and the government can get the money from corporations and their other revenue sources like tariffs and the like.

reply to post by endisnighe

---

Hypothetically, would you support a tax structure of only a 30 - 50% corporate tax and government allows fair trade and collects the disparity of trade between (example) US and China. We could rake in a huge amount of money by doing that and leveling the playing field.

And nationalizing big banks and natural resources, where they could give some of that money collected through nationalization back to the people.

Woudl you support that?

[edit on 5/19/10 by Misoir]

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by endisnighe

---

Hypothetically, would you support a tax structure of only a 30 - 50% corporate tax and government allows fair trade and collects the disparity of trade between (example) US and China. We could rake in a huge amount of money by doing that and leveling the playing field.

That is pretty much one of my ideas I have floated before. The problem is in the accounting. I had two courses in accounting in college. Taxation of corporations is based on profit. There are so many tricks involved that the government has snuck into the corporate accounting. hotpinkurinalcake can tell you some of the tricks on that. As for tariffs, that is what the government use to make the majority of countries use to get their revenue. By the globalization efforts, the government has removed these to allow the corporations to make more profits and putting the burden of the taxation on the individuals.

Think of this, what if you removed all taxation on individuals and sole proprietorships. By the tenet of Libertarianism, these entities have to follow the contract of causing no harm etc. This would provide a better chance at smaller businesses competition compared to the larger companies.

Now, to form a corporation, apply all the taxation you want. No allowance of property rights. They can only rent or lease the land from the individuals or the government. They have to pay that plus the profit tax with a stringent accounting principles. But they are still held to the same contract of causing no harm.

And nationalizing big banks and natural resources, where they could give some of that money collected through nationalization back to the people.

Nationalizing resources removes the rights of property ownership. Do not like that.

Nationalizing banks. Hmmm.
This is one thing that krazyjethro and I were talking about once. A currency has to be based on something. Fractional reserve banking causes a debt or credit based society, which has got us into the whole problem we are now.

Still thinking on some of these issues in my own mind.

reply to post by poet1b

---

This is more that I wanted to say about the Platform of the Libertarian Party, and that is it seems this parties goal is to replace the U.S. Constitution with the ideological nonsense of the free market.

My friend, perhaps then you should have said precisely what you wanted to say, rather than more, as you are just like government, always insisting on doing more than you intend, and claiming this is for our own good. Before using your post to quote a single line from the Libertarian platform, you first declare that the Libertarian's goal is to replace the Constitution and insidiously suggest that the Constitution is against free markets.

If that isn't communism, then what is?

In your first paragraph you declare free markets as nonsense, and then follow with this wholly nonsensical line. It is nothing more than double speak and perhaps you believe that you will confuse the reader with such double speak, but I assure you any free market advocate reading your blather will recognize it for what it is.

There are so many unrealistic views in this platform, I don't have time to go through all of them, but just a few. I am not going to quote the entire, only the more glaring problems. In the statement before they list their principles.

And you follow with this statement from the Libertarian platform:

They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

You follow this Libertarian platform assertion with this statement of your own:

Sorry, but this is completely in opposition to the beliefs of the writers of our nations constitution, who believed it was the role of government to protect the rights of the individual. While the platform states that one individuals rights should not interfere with another, they want to pretend that the market system will do such a thing, which is a communist theory.

Given your proclivity to merely glance at what you read, no one reading this should take you seriously at all on what communist theory is. Free markets are not borne of communist theory no matter how long and how hard you claim it so. But even worse, you claim that this Libertarian principle of free trade is "completely in opposition to the beliefs of the writers of our nations Constitution. Let's examine that and see if it is true:

“It is very imprudent to deprive America of any of her privileges. If her commerce and friendship are of any importance to you, they are to be had on no other terms than leaving her in the full enjoyment of her rights.”

~Benjamin Franklin, Political Observances~

“Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue; or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences; a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few not for the many.”

~James Madison—Federalist No. 62~

“The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of its political cares.”

~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 12~

“Harmony, liberal intercourse with all Nations, are recommended by policy, humanity and interest. But even our Commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favours or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of Commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with Powers so disposed; in order to give trade a stable course.”

~George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796~

“I think all the world would gain by setting commerce at perfect liberty.”

~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 1785~

“If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.”

~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, 1802~

“No nation was ever ruined by trade, even seemingly the most disadvantageous.”

~Benjamin Franklin and George Whaley, Principles of Trade, 1774~

“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”

~Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Ludlow, 1824~

"Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty."

~John Adams~

"The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right"

~Thomas Jefferson~

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

~Thomas Jefferson~

Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them.
~Thomas Paine (1776)~

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

~Patrick Henry~

A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

~Thomas Jefferson (1801)~

If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we would soon want for bread.

~Thomas Jefferson~

When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny.

~Thomas Paine~

You then go on to quote Section 1.0 of the Libertarian platform which you only quoted in part, but in fairness to you, you did warn that this is what you would do, but in fairness to the Libertarians, I will quote Section 1.0 in its entirety now:

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

In response to that part which you quoted, you ask:

What about criminals? While I think currently our law enforcement has gone too far, we still need government to establish law against criminals, and people certainly have the right to act in self defense of themselves, loved ones, and property. The additional points in this 1.X category cover some areas of crime, to which I mostly agree, but what the contradiction. Violent crime is not addressed, nor the removal of violent criminals from society.

You speak to a Sub Section of which you did not bother to quote, so allow me:

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

While you claim this Sub Section does not address violent crime, it does, and I am going to refrain from calling you a liar, given your own admission that you are prone to merely glancing at that which you read.

You then quote Section 2.0 in part, so allow me to quote it in its entirety:

2.0 Economic Liberty

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

You speak to this section by stating:

Free markets and property rights do nothing to prevent environmental pollution on one private person part to mess with another's property rights. Most often environmental pollution is not identified until long after the damage is done. Only with a well developed field of law accompanied by scientific studies that identify the environmental pollutants and the levels that cause harm can we prevent our environment from being poisoned by numerous toxic wastes.

You make this little self righteous speech pretending that the Libertarian platform has not addressed your concern, but I am running out of space in this post, and will repost your little environmental screed and follow it up with the Sub Section 2.2

Continued...

reply to post by poet1b

---

Continuing...

Free markets and property rights do nothing to prevent environmental pollution on one private person part to mess with another's property rights. Most often environmental pollution is not identified until long after the damage is done. Only with a well developed field of law accompanied by scientific studies that identify the environmental pollutants and the levels that cause harm can we prevent our environment from being poisoned by numerous toxic wastes.

Now here is Sub Section 2.2. of the Libertarian platform:

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

This section has spoken directly to your concern, it is folly to pretend that it hasn't. You continue by stating:

As far as taxation goes, how about private interests pay taxes in commissary to their use of government. Businesses that operate at a local level shouldn't have to pay federal taxes, and this would include all people who earn a living by selling their labor or ideas, except indirectly through the goods and services they purchase that cross state and federal borders. If you do business that crosses state and national borders, then you fall under federal regulation, and you should pay taxes for the costs incurred by the federal government in regulating these areas of commerce, as per the U.S. Constitution. The same goes with companies that handle toxic waste, and other national concerns controlled by the federal government.

My friend, just when I am about ready to give up on you entirely you go and say something as likable as this. I don't agree completely with your assessment, but clearly you are no fan of needless taxation, and for this you deserve praise. I, and Libertarians, would disagree with your assessment that private interests pay taxes in commissary to their use of government only in that no private interest should be using government outside of the general purpose of governments existence. More simply said, what government does for you, it should do for all, and since such as task can be daunting when government is limited, such a task is even more daunting when government is large and deigns to do for people what they should be doing for themselves.

The Constitution has granted Congress the control of regulation of commerce between the states, but you seem to want to imply that Libertarians are against this. Are they? Let's look at what actual Libertarians have to say about the Commerce Clause:

“The commerce clause of the Constitution which is used so often to justify government regulation of the rights of citizens applies to positive commercial activity,” he said. “If a citizen declines to purchase health insurance, a negative commercial activity, the commerce clause can not apply.”

~Herb Sobel, Libertarian candidate for N.C. House District 3.~

Next is a Libertarian website called Broken Tracks that relies heavily upon an analysis by Attorney General of the State of Florida, Bill McCollum:

Never before has Congress compelled Americans, under threat of government fines or taxes, to purchase an unwanted product or service simply as a condition of existing in this country (a “living tax”). Congress does not possess the constitutional authority to enact such a requirement. The U. S. Supreme Court long ago recognized that the “powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)(Marshall, C. J.). “Every law enacted by Congress must be based in one or more powers enumerated in the Constitution.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2000).

A. Congress lacks Commerce Clause authority to enact the individual mandate.

McCollum Continues with:

The Senate bill (H. R. 3590 as amended, Sec. 1501) lodges federal authority for the individual mandate within interstate commerce. Congress may “regulate” insurance-related interstate commerce and those engaging in such commerce pursuant to the U. S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause (Article I, section 8), yet compelling Americans with threat of sanctions to affirmatively enter commerce and buy insurance is altogether different. The Commerce Clause gives no authority for Congress to transform a citizen’s individual choice to be inactive in the marketplace into a compulsion to purchase apparently unwanted insurance or be penalized.

And goes even further to state:

Indeed, the U. S. Supreme Court has twice in the last 15 years invalidated laws that attempted to regulate non-economic activity under the Commerce Clause, and it is unlikely the Court would permit Congress to reach even further to regulate inactivity. Congress may only regulate under its commerce power (1) the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce (persons or things in commerce), and (3) activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558-59 (1995). In Lopez, the Court invalidated a law making it a crime to possess guns near a school because the commerce power could not be stretched to regulate gun possession, which “is in no sense” activity that might substantially affect interstate commerce. Id. at 567. Similarly, in Morrison, the Court invalidated a law that provided civil remedies for victims of gender-motivated crimes, because such crimes “are not, in any sense of the phrase, economic activity” that may be subject to Commerce Clause regulation. 529 U.S. at 613.

And continues even further:

Here, as in Lopez and Morrison, Congress would be regulating and penalizing not only non-economic activity, but inactivity itself. A citizen’s choice not to buy health insurance cannot rationally be construed as economic activity, or even “activity,” to subject that inactivity to regulation under the Commerce Clause. While Congress might prefer that all citizens enter the marketplace and purchase health insurance coverage, an individual’s choice not to do so simply may not be regulated under the enumerated powers of Congress.

Of course, McCollum keeps on about the Commerce Clause, but why beat a dead horse with just one persons words? Let's Consider what Justice Clarence Thomas, often touted as having "Libertarian leanings" has to say about the Commerce Clause:

"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything," including "quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers." Thus "the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

Here are some words from the Libertarian organization The Institute For Justice:

The so-called "dormant" Commerce Clause forbids states from disrupting interstate commerce either by discriminating against citizens of other states or by enforcing regulations that unduly impede the free flow of commerce. In the Institute for Justice’s New York wine case, we argue that permitting in-state wineries to ship wine directly to New York consumers while denying out-of-state wineries the same right violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Similarly, we argued that Oklahoma had no power to impose its parochial licensing requirements on the interstate sale of caskets.

Although the primary goal of IJ’s economic liberty work is to strengthen the protections afforded by the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges or Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the dormant Commerce Clause serves as a living reminder that courts can—and should—take economic liberties seriously.

You continue to claim that Libertarian values "completely contradict the Constitution but refuse to offer up any part of the Constitution that Libertarians contradict to support your argument, and in the same breath that you are declaring Libertarians contrary to the Constitution you then claim that certain natural resources should never be controlled by private interests. You then name what you believe should be public and not private which includes air, including frequencies we use to broadcast, rivers, lakes, ports, and public thruways. Poet, I am not inclined to disagree with you on this in some regards, but I am also one fully aware of what giving an inch to government means. Further, it is worth reading this article by The Institute for Justice to better illustrate what I mean.

Again I am running out of space, and must continue in yet another post.

Continuing...

reply to post by poet1b

---

Continuing...

The government has a clear role in protecting individual rights from private interests which create large and powerful corporate entities that are capable of seriously abusing the rights of individuals and paralyzing local, state, and federal governments to prevent them from prosecuting those corporations for their crimes.

First of all, my friend, corporate entities are not private and are publicly traded. Private interests are precisely that, private. The government does indeed have a clear role in protecting the rights of individuals, and again, let me just emphasize that when you are on this track, I love you dearly. I also firmly agree that corporatism causes great damage to the individual rights and do not agree with you that corporations should be granted any legal status, particularly when the legal status grants them the privilege of removing any personal and private liability from the actions of the corporation, which obviously can not act on its own and only serves to shield private persons from liability. This shield is a government created shield and should not exist.

If anything, we need government to better establish what standards should be met to be qualified to work in certain capacities. With current technology, there is no reason a person shouldn't be able to take courses over the internet, take the tests, and get qualified to work in a chosen field without ever having to pay some private institution for ones education.

I agree with you completely on this thought, and would take it further and suggest that the vast majority of private professions and practices should not require any license to do so. It is the licensing schemes imposed by governments, mainly state and local that wind up creating the situation you are complaining about. Mostly, as their will be private interests that prefer to make contracts with those who come from institutions of academia that carry more prestige than would an internet course, but on a private level, people are free to contract how they wish, as long as such a contract is not contrary to law.

Forcing individuals to get approved by private organizations not held to a national standard in order to work in a particular field is an extreme way of denying an individual his rights or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An individual should not have to join some fraternity to participate in the markets.

Agreed again, however who is forcing anyone to do so?

You continue on by quoting another Sub Section of the Libertarian platform but what you quote is partial and your use of 3X implies you are quoting Section 3.0 when in fact you are quoting a portion of Sub Section 3.4. Allow me to quote that in its entirety:

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

Here is what you have to say in response to 3.4:

Once again, this is in complete contradiction to the U.S.Constitution which clearly identifies the role of the U.S. government in conducting treaties with foreign nations. What needs to change is that these treaties should be negotiated with the best interest of the people of the U.S. in mind, and not other nations and corporate rights as is currently being done.

Once again you make spurious claims regarding the Constitution, refusing to quote the Constitution to support your claims. The authority granted the federal government to make treatise with foreign nations, does not grant that federal government the right to disparage individual rights when making these treatise. It is odd to me Poet, that you seem to have a firm grasp on the protection of individual rights, but then will turn around and argue that the federal government can disparage those rights when necessary. That said, you do state that the treatise should be made with the peoples best interest in mind, and given your strong stance on individual rights I am willing to believe that this is what you mean, but why is you then have such a problem with Libertarianism? Of course, it comes down to corporatism of which you have spuriously claimed is a Libertarian ideal. It is not.

The idea that the U.S. government can be replaced by an economic system, especially one that is idealistic to the point of being unrealistic is the kind of pursuit that communists undertake.

Libertarians are not at all interested in replacing government with an economic system, this is wholly your claim, and while you began by omitting a large portion of 2.6 of the Libertarian platform in an attempt to make it appear as if Libertarians were pro corporatism, and then promised to address that which you omitted, you still have not done so. Let's go back to 2.6:

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

You have claimed that the portion of which you omitted I have misread. Of course, you know darn well I can't resist in teasing you once again on your proclivity towards glancing at that which you read, while you accuse me of misreading. But let's just turn to Libertarians and see what they have to say about corporatism:

What is corporatism
What is the Libertarian view on corporatism?
How do libertarians view the problem of natural monopolies?How do Libertarians view the problem of natural monopolies?
Cato Institute on Corporations versus the Market
Ron Paul's Socialist versus Corporatist

And, of course, I would be remiss if I did not post at least one links to one of the best known Libertarians, Milton Friedman:.

Poet, I have come to believe your heart is in the right place, but your sense of logic has a busted compass. No matter how pure your heart, if you can not see the whole forest from the trees in front of you, you will forever be lost in that forest.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

---

Ok, I'll forgo the usual sarcastic response to your opening sarcastic response since you actually seem to be starting to get what I am saying. Why not be nice?

Replacing government with a marketing system is a communist ideal, and reading the Libertarian view, I see that as their goal as they state numerous times.

The U.S. Constitution was written by people who believed that it is the role of government to protect the rights of the individual.

www.usconstitution.net...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

While libertarians specifically state, as I have already quoted.

They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

The important, and very critical statement in this quote from the Libertarian website is this.

the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

This is clearly in opposition to the preamble of the U.S. Constitution which states that it is the role of government to

secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

These critical points are clearly in opposition to each other. Libertarians claim that only free markets are compatible with the protection of individual rights, our liberty, while the framers of the U.S. constitution consider it to be the role of government to guard our liberty.

You can read every word a hundred times, but if you fail to identifying the critical points, then you fail to understand what you are reading.

You complain about my quoting and linking techniques, yet you consistently fail to put links and quotes together. You either post a link or a quote, and for some reason fail to consistently put both together as I continuously strive to do.

You have all these quotes from the founders of the U.S. constitution, without any links so that readers and look at the context in which they were made.

That being said, I am familiar with these quotes, and what is clear to anyone who understands what they are reading is that none of the statements in these quotes are saying that government should not regulate markets.

Yes, most of founders of the U.S. Constitution, of which Jefferson was not one, were very cautious of the exercise of government power in all aspects of life, not just in the markets. They were much more concerned about liberty, freedom, than they were about property rights.

All of your quotes caution about giving government too much power over regulating markets, and the possible consequences, but all of them also recognize that markets must be regulated. None of them state that markets should not be regulated.

If you provide the links to these quotes you have posted, this becomes more obvious. If you follow the link above to the U.S. Constitution you will clearly see it stated that the powers of Congress include regulating commerce.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clearly the framers of the U.S. constitution recognized the need for government in this role. While libertarians claim this is not the case.

2.0 Economic Liberty

All efforts by government ..... to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

This critical point that Libertarians claim is clearly in opposition to the U.S. constitution.



The section on the Libertarian position on liberty is kind of outside of our debate, but I thought I would bring up this inconsistency in section 1.X

The Libertarian position on crime stated in 1.0 and 1.5 do not mesh. If government can not initiate force then how are they going to apprehend criminals and enforce laws. In addition, there is no adequate form of restitution in cases of murder and rape, or even most violent acts. Locking up the perp and throwing away the key, or putting them to death is sometimes the only answer.

I though most libertarians were for the death penalty. I think that would be considered as an initiation of force.



My statement regarding claims made in 2.2 is right on the money. The Libertarian claim that free markets will protect the environment is pure horse manure, and my response clearly explains why.

Your inability to come up with a logical argument to refute my claims on the matter indicates that you simply do not understand the reality, or you have no logical argument. Your response, to quote and declare I am wrong without any reason offered, is meaningless.



I am glad that we can agree on something. Not only am I not a fan of needless taxation, I am also not a fan of needless regulation, I just recognize its necessity.

This statement however is not reasonable, nor thoroughly thought out.

... More simply said, what government does for you, it should do for all, ...

Government covers a vast array of aspects of peoples lives, and many things that government is supposed to do, is not utilized by everyone. Take getting a passport for instance. Do you recognize the legitimate need for a passport? Well, plenty of people never plan on leaving the U.S. so they have no need for a passport. Under this concept that "what government does for you, it should do for all" it would be a massive waste of resources for all to have passport when it is not needed. Different activities lead to different areas of interaction with government. It is only reasonable that those activities that require a great deal of government support, such as the importation of goods, as I explained in my example, should require that those engaging in those actions pay in propensity to their usage. I don't expect others to pay for my passport, why should I pay for the government activities to protect the public from the complexities of the importation of goods.


I am not sure what your quote on regulation about positive and negative commercial activity is referring to. Maybe you can provide a link to further explain this. Attacking health insurance regulation is a whole different topic, and hardly speaks of support of regulation of commerce.

Do you think the same logic should apply to auto insurance? I don't agree with the way the insurance industry operates at all, but I am forced to buy into this system at many junctures. What gives the states any more right to violate our liberty through such mandates?

Yes, the commerce clause does not allow the government to do what ever it desires. This is why we have a judicial branch.

The commerce clause does a lot more than protect against states creating trade barriers between states as you imply. A gallon in one state should equal a gallon in another state, legal contracts from one state should be legal in another, but they shouldn't allow one state to impose their law on another. Pollution does not recognize borders, so it is a federal regulation issue.

Nothing you have posted here shows any recognition of the federal governments power to regulate commerce, but the most narrow and unrealistic. When the federal government oversteps its authority, the Judicial branch is supposed to step in, and this is the best system in place on the planet right now. Why would we replace this with the idealism of the free market?


Corporate entities are indeed publicly traded, but most corporations are controlled by a small group of private interests working together.

It seems we agree a great deal on the role of corporations, and in this arena our discussion is bearing fruit. We just disagree with how to deal with corporations.

I don't believe in a free market, or more to the point, I don't believe any natural functions of society can prevent crime. I think the point of government is to create a tool that enables us to protect our liberties by establishing laws that punish criminal behavior. This being said, I also recognize that government can turn against the people who created it, as I feel is the case over the last couple of decades.

We need to do something about the stranglehold corporations have over congress through lobbyists, and the enormous influence of campaign contributions.

Yes, we need to find away to hold the people hiding behind the corporate mask responsible for their crimes.


Currently our state governments are forcing people to gain the approval of private organizations, or state sponsored organizations which have been established as the gate keepers to what types of enterprise one can engage in. Most state licensing requirements require some sort of degree from a university. There are very little standards as to what requirements a university may impose for the completion of a degree. However, these universities are fully enabled to charge ever larger amounts of money for tuition in order to be granted access to a great deal of economic activity. There should be a standardized testing system that enables those who have learned on their own to prove their qualifications, which all who apply should be required to pass, even university grads.

Looks like I also need to use another post to finish my reply.



[edit on 20-5-2010 by poet1b]

[edit on 20-5-2010 by poet1b]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

---

Numerous times in the Libertarian platform, the desire is expressed to exclude government power in expectations that the free market will deal with the situation. Rather than allowing citizens to utilize government to protect their rights, as it was intended by the founders of the U.S. government and Constitution, we are supposed to surrender the use of government laws and depend on the free market to protect our liberties.

This is attempting to put an economic system in place of the role that government fulfills. That is what communism aimed to do.

I am not going to wait for some supposed free market control to stop the local corporation from dumping toxic waste into my community, I am going to demand that the government stop this dumping, and punish the offenders.

This is what the U.S. constitution says about treaties.

www.usconstitution.net...

Article II - The Executive Branch

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;...

NO, these treaties can not and should not disparage individual rights, when making these treaties. These treaties should in fact be made specifically for the purpose of protecting individual rights.

This policy on trade espoused by the Libertarian platform, in this critical point where it is declared that

Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Removal of all aspects that restrict the movement of human as well as financial capital, irregardless of the impact on individual life liberty and property is not in line with the U.S. Constitution. Economic freedom does not triumph over individual freedom, as this position seeks to establish.

The people certainly have the right to demand that treaties be written to prevent other nations as well as corporations, from setting up unfair trade advantages that unfairly arrange trade agreements that serve the interests of the corporations and other nations at the cost of the people of the U.S.. For example, our federal government should not allow trade agreements where other nations are able to fix their currency, in order to keep the price of goods and services provided by their nation artificially low, in order to give them an unfair trade imbalance.

Once again, the critical points in 2.6, which you fail to recognize.

www.lp.org...

We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals.

This would strip the federal government of its ability to protect the rights of the individual, which is the purpose of government, and turn control of our nation over to private interest who would be handed control of virtually every aspect of our lives.

Government would be replaced by economic control, which is communism. This would make us slaves to the PTB. Do you really want corporations to control everything but the most basic of law enforcement activities. Government would be turned into a police state which only exists to back up the people who control the economy. You would have to pay for a drink of water, to send a signal, to pass through an area. Every aspect of your life would be dictated by economics. Sorry but no thanks.

Industries should be governed by free markets.

Not in the U.S.. Markets are governed by the government put in place by the people, not the people who control the markets.

This is completely against the concepts on which our constitution was founded.

Once again

www.usconstitution.net...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Industry is governed "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

Industry doesn't get to operate by a different set of rules, especially arbitrary rules of some idealistic economic concept.

The people have the right to exercise control over industry through government, to prevent industry from subverting the rights of the individual.

reply to post by poet1b

---

Replacing government with a marketing system is a communist ideal, and reading the Libertarian view, I see that as their goal as they state numerous times.

Poet, my brother, you necessarily have to omit language from their platform in order to see it that way. Never mind the fact that the Libertarian Party that seeks to hold Constitutionally mandated offices, apparently you believe that they would run for these offices, relying upon the Constitution in order to get elected, or appointed, then somehow reject all of that and dissolve the government.

The U.S. Constitution was written by people who believed that it is the role of government to protect the rights of the individual.

The Libertarian Party believes no less. You have quoted the Preamble to The Constitution for the United States, and for the purposes of cohesion, I will do the same:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It should be noted that this Preamble begins with We the People, illustrating who it is that existed before the Constitution was written and showing who it is that had the authority to write that Constitution, even though it was written by representatives at a Constitutional Convention, it does not state We the Representatives, but rather We the People. This is the first clue that We the People are sovereign beings who have the authority to write Constitutions forming government.

The Preamble then explains why the government was formed and ends with this statement; "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America", and here is your second clue that We the People are sovereign beings with the authority to ordain a Constitution.

Now, while you have stubbornly relied upon the willfully edited version you have supplied, which comes from the Libertarian Party's Statement of Principles, bypassing their own Preamble and all of their Statement of Principles except for the last sentence. Even that last sentence clearly acknowledges government stating that government should let people alone regarding free trade, and in doing so the result would be a free market, that Libertarians believe is the only economic system compatible with the protection of individual rights. Even so, it is prudent to quote the Libertarian Party's Preamble and subsequent Statement of Principles in its entirety:

Preamble

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

Seeking a world where liberty is the norm is in no way contrary to the Constitution for the United States of America, and certainly asserting that all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and should not be subject to any force that would demand they sacrifice their own values for the benefit of others, is in no way contrary to the Constitution.

Asserting that respect for rights of the individual is a precondition for a free and prosperous world is in no way contrary to the Constitution, and asserting that force and fraud should be banished from human relationships is in no way contrary to the Constitution. Certainly, asserting that only through freedom can peace be achieved, is in no way contrary to the Constitution.

Asserting that defending each persons right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest is in no way contrary to the Constitution. Welcoming the diversity that freedom brings is in no way contrary to the Constitution. Asserting that all people are free to follow their dreams in the manner they see fit, as long as it is peaceful and honest in accordance with respect to all others equal rights, and should be free of government interference or any other authoritarian power, is in no way contrary to the Constitution.

It should be further noted that the policies listed in the subsequent Statement of Principles, is clarified with the statement; "These specific policies are not our goal, however.", a fact you have conveniently ignored in order to see it the way you have chosen to see it. Here now, the Statement of Principles:

Statement of Principles

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

There is absolutely nothing about the Libertarian Party's Platform that contradicts anything the Preamble or the subsequent text of the Constitution for the United States of America states. Challenging the cult of the omnipotent state is indeed harmonious with the Constitution and not contrary to it. Holding that individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their lives in whatever manner they choose that is consistent with the respect of equal rights for other individuals is in no way contrary to the Constitution.

Pointing out that governments have historically taken the opposite view and have used force to dispose of people and the fruits of their labor is neither false, nor is it contrary to the Constitution. Their assertion that even in the United States all other parties have granted to government the authority to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without consent is again not false, nor is it contrary to the Constitution.

When the Libertarian Party asserts that they wish to deny the government the the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without consent, they are first obviously acknowledging the existence of a government and it can not be construed from their assertion that they would deny that government certain authorities that they are seeking to dissolve government, on the contrary they are asserting the endeavor to reign in abusive usurpation's of government. When the Libertarian Party asserts that governments must not violate the rights of any individual, and then name life, liberty, and property as certain inalienable rights, they are not in anyway stating anything contrary to the Constitution.

The Libertarians further assertions of rights being freedom of speech, of the press, and the right to own property in no way is contrary to the Constitution, and it should be noted that beyond a federal Constitution, there are state constitutions, and in the state of which I live, which is the State of California, that constitution under Article I, Section 1 of the Declaration of Rights:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

I must continue in the next post...

reply to post by poet1b

---

Allow me to begin by re-quoting Article I, Section 1 of the California constitution:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

A constitutional fact ignored by the legislature, the executive, and judicial branch of that state quite regularly, and yet, you accuse the Libertarian Party of wanting to usurp the government. The only statement that can be construed as contrary to the Constitution would be their opposition to eminent domain. Eminent domain is only mentioned in the 5th Amendment and what it speaks to, known as the Takings Clause, is that the federal government can not take an individuals property for public use, without just compensation. Prior to the 14th Amendment it was generally held that this eminent domain only extended to the federal government and not the states, but since the passage of the 14th Amendment the courts have held that states also have the privilege of eminent domain. Since this privilege granted government has been done so through Amendment, then it can be revoked by Amendment, and in doing so, in no way contrary to the Constitution.

The assertion that governments, when instituted must not violate the rights of the individual, and opposition to government interference regarding private contracts, is in no way contrary to the Constitution. The assertion that people should not be forced to sacrifice their property to benefit others, is in no way contrary to the Constitution. Finally, the statement of which you have oft' quoted, albeit through omitting all that preceded it, that people should be left free by government to freely trade, and that the consequence of this would be a free market that Libertarians believe is the only economic system compatible with the protection of individual rights, is in no way contrary to the Constitution.

Poet, my brother, it is late, or rather very early, and I have a meeting in a few hours and work is finally flowing my way, which is a tragic symptom of my regular posts here, that when I am posting regularly it is due to the lack of work, and when work is flowing my way, I have far less time to post. I must end here, and hopefully throughout this weekend I can pick back up and continue to address the other points you have made, but must end now because I too have a life. Please feel free to address the points I've made in these posts, and I will do my best to keep up with you, and if it turns out I can not keep up with you, I will U2U and plead with you slow down so I may address what I haven't.

As always, it has been a pleasure debating you, and I mean it sincerely when I say I have grown rather fond of you, and when I call you brother and friend. Until the next time, I will keep good thoughts for you, and look forward to reading your reply.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

---

Thanks for the response Jean Paul, you are one of the few Libertarians willing to debate the issue, and this really is The issue that separates the moderates in the middle from forming a third party.

Let's look at the situation we all are facing.

Local state and federal governments have stopped serving the purpose for which they were created, which is to protect individual liberty. With drug prohibition laws, safety laws, and a criminal system that seems content to run a policy of revolving doors for the real criminals, we have been essentially stripped of our rights.

In addition to this, the various levels of government have refused to enforce laws against illegal immigration and the employment of illegal immigrants. This has effectively re-introduced slavery in this country by completely swamping the labor markets with immigrants desperate to flee the oppressive governments from which they immigrated.

On top of this, our financial markets have been corrupted with wide spread fraud, which is primarily due to the de-regulations created under Newt Gingrich and the republican congress, causing the current economic catastrophe. Not to mention the GW admin choice to enforce only the laws they desired to enforce.

Under the guise of multiculturalism and political correctness liberal elites (who are not liberals) have created an environment that encourages racism and hostility that keeps the working class fighting against each other.

Essentially, the elites who control both parties have us right were they want us right now.

Those of us on the left side see all of this, we see how the democratic party has betrayed us.

Those on the right realize that they have been betrayed, but refuse to recognize how they have been betrayed.

Nothing in the additional quotes you have provided, nor any combination of those concepts, changes that the free market beliefs are not compatible of the concepts of the framers of the U.S. constitution.

(1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;

Physical force is sometimes necessary for the enforcement of law. Criminals do not always surrender peacefully. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution excludes the use of force in to establish Justice, which is necessary.

(2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form;

While freedom of speech is possibly our most important right, there are exceptions to what should be allowed under freedom of speech, threats of physical violence should not be allowed, and bribery shouldn't be considered a form of free speech. Coercion should not be allowed.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.

The Constitution clearly recognizes the role of government in the regulation of business, including what may or may not be allowed in contractual relations. No contract should be written which results in one person or organization depriving another of their liberty, or unfairly deprives someone of their property. Just because some slick talker convinces someone to sign a contract that unfairly deprives another of their liberty or property, doesn't mean the government should have to recognize that contract as legal. For example, no contract should be written where any type of indentured servitude is included.

Because

People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others.

The government, as the sole enforcer of law, most certainly has the right to interfere to void contracts written under deceptive terms which do force people to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefits of others.

They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; is the free market.

No, the engagement of trade activities should not put groups beyond the scope of government, and the law.

and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights,

Market systems have nothing to do with the protection of individual rights, that is not the purpose of market system.

the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Only competitive markets are most compatible with free societies. The free market concept aims to eliminate the role of government in overseeing market activity in preventing fraud and abuse through business activities.

I agree, government has no right in regulating the rights of individuals, but certainly the government has the right to regulate business activities to prevent the abuse of individual rights.

I also agree that government currently engages in the violation if individual rights on numerous arenas.

The thing is, that the free market system is part of the problem that has lead government to abuse the rights of the individuals, as a results of increasing the power of corporations which have succeeded in taking far too much control of government.

Just as ethnic quotas, political correctness, and multiculturalism have allowed the abuse of individual rights.

Glad to see you are working. We don't always have the time to do things we consider to be important.

reply to post by poet1b

---

Thank you for your kind encouragement Poet, and it is great to be working. So, before I get down to the business of daily bread today, I am going to respond to your last post. I would love to address the further points in your previous posts but I am skeptical I have the time and your last post was so great, I am going to make the time to address those points, and hopefully later on today or tomorrow I can go back to the rest.

Also, I wanted to say that earlier you mentioned how important this debate is, and I don't think I ever properly responded to that. You are correct, this is an important debate, and one that must continue.

Let's look at the situation we all are facing. Local state and federal governments have stopped serving the purpose for which they were created, which is to protect individual liberty. With drug prohibition laws, safety laws, and a criminal system that seems content to run a policy of revolving doors for the real criminals, we have been essentially stripped of our rights.

I would say that in a nutshell, that is a spot on assessment. It is great to be able to agree with you without any qualifications at all, and in a general sense there is much we both agree on.

In addition to this, the various levels of government have refused to enforce laws against illegal immigration and the employment of illegal immigrants. This has effectively re-introduced slavery in this country by completely swamping the labor markets with immigrants desperate to flee the oppressive governments from which they immigrated.

More agreement! It is a sad and tragic irony that while many immigrants who cross our borders illegally, are doing so to escape the tyranny and slavery of their own government, and yet have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. I would quibble with you on the re-introduction of slavery in this country, as long before we were facing this current problem with immigration, there was the 14th Amendment that has easily facilitated the slavery we all face.

On top of this, our financial markets have been corrupted with wide spread fraud, which is primarily due to the de-regulations created under Newt Gingrich and the republican congress, causing the current economic catastrophe. Not to mention the GW admin choice to enforce only the laws they desired to enforce.

I can't agree with you more that the markets have been corrupted with wide spread fraud, but the agreement stops there and we begin to reach those issues of contention between us. Where you blame "deregulation" on the current economic catastrophe, I say it is the regulation that exists that has, not so much caused this fraud, as facilitated it. When you say "deregulation", I feel fairly confident that you don't need it explained to you that this term does not connote an end to regulation, but merely a diminished capacity in term of regulation. Even so, it is exactly regulatory practices that brought rise to the now infamous phrase; "Too Big To Fail".

The argument of "too big to fail" flies directly in the face of the anti-trust laws firmly established in The United States of America, and while there are those who would argue that anti-trust laws are a regulation of business, I would argue they are no more a regulation of freedom than slander, libel, and inciting riots are a regulation of speech. Where slander, liable and inciting riots are acts that cause harm, and as such a crime, so too do monopolies cause harm and abrogate and derogate the rights of others, and as such a crime. A crime is a crime, and Justice demands that when a crime is committed, that the party committing the crime make restitution to the party who was victim to that crime.

Under the guise of multiculturalism and political correctness liberal elites (who are not liberals) have created an environment that encourages racism and hostility that keeps the working class fighting against each other.

Indeed! A most wise statement, and quite revealing as to why I have come to like you so much. While some of your arguments have led me to believe you lean left on issues, in truth you are a liberal in that truest sense of the word. One of the many reasons I became a Libertarian to begin with have to do with the bastardization of both the word liberal and conservative. Where you are a liberal, I am a conservative. I am a conservative because I seek to conserve the Constitution and its principles, and where you are a liberal, you tend to take a liberal view of that Constitution. Both of us want freedom, and it was wrong of the Republican Party and even the Democrat Party to frame liberalism as a left wing agenda. It was even more wrong, in my opinion, for both party's to frame conservatism as being an advocacy of corporatism and protecting the wealthy elite.

I was never a Democrat since by the time I was of age to vote I had all ready rejected much of the idealism that Democrats seem to embrace, although I did eventually vote for a Democrat in Bill Clinton, that had as much to do with firing Bush Sr. as it did hoping Clinton would endeavor to loosen the federal drug laws in place. He, of course, did not, and only endeavored to expand them. I then became a Libertarian, and one of the biggest selling points was a man running for the insurance commissioners job in California. His name escapes me, but his platform was simple and remarkably fresh. He asked the voters vote for him so that he may eliminate that useless office that only served to facilitate fraud.

I did vote for him and indeed, voted a straight Libertarian ticket that year, which meant every single person I voted for did not get elected. Who did get elected for insurance commissioner was a man named George Quackenbush whose corruption and politics as usual only solidified my own beliefs that the Libertarian Party was on to something. The Quackenbush story illustrates on a microcosmic scale all that is wrong with regulation. It was not the regulation that created fraud as I am not so naive as to believe that fraud would not have existed in a free market, but the fraud that exists under regulation becomes sanctioned fraud where the victims of that fraud are virtually ignored so that the state may reap the fortunes that come from any misdeeds by insurance companies, but those insurance companies still operate and smugly so.

Essentially, the elites who control both parties have us right were they want us right now.

Yes and no. I think less and less they have people like End and and I where they want us, but do have people like you where they want you. Both End and I have, in a large part, rejected the governments right to regulate us, and where you seem to philosophically agree with this, you still vehemently argue that the government has the right to regulate, even though this regulation has culminated in a regulation over you. You certainly recognize this is bad, but keep arguing for the very policies that led to this.

Those of us on the left side see all of this, we see how the democratic party has betrayed us.

You see this, but the Democratic Party is too strong to buy your sweeping generalization that those on the left see it. Besides, I am inclined to believe at this point that you are not really a leftist, as your views seem to be pretty much down the center on issues. That the Democratic Party betrayed you should be no more a surprise than the betrayal of the Republican Party to those on the right. Both Party's are filled with posers who only want to expand the role of government and usurp that government for their own personal power.

Those on the right realize that they have been betrayed, but refuse to recognize how they have been betrayed.

Of course, this is not at all true as more and more people on the right have left the Republican Party either becoming Libertarians or Independents.

Physical force is sometimes necessary for the enforcement of law. Criminals do not always surrender peacefully. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution excludes the use of force in to establish Justice, which is necessary.

It is, sadly, sometimes necessary and there is not a single Libertarian I know who would disagree with you, but Justice does not preclude the Libertarian ideal that the initiation of force against others should be banished, and it is an ideal, and again, I don't know of a single Libertarian who is so naive as to believe that an ideal is reality. However, criminals often rely upon force and this is their crime. If that was completely banished then Justice would prevail. This is the point the Libertarian's are making, not that anarchy should replace government.

While freedom of speech is possibly our most important right, there are exceptions to what should be allowed under freedom of speech, threats of physical violence should not be allowed, and bribery shouldn't be considered a form of free speech. Coercion should not be allowed.

It is the notion that freedom and rights are something that are "allowed" that leads to the inevitable betrayal by government. When we grant government the authority to allow freedom, we run the very real risk of government disallowing freedom. It is not that freedom of speech is allowed, it is that freedom of speech is a right, and a right can only be a right if all people have it, and it does not adversely affect the rights of others. Coercion, bribery, and assault are abrogations and derogation's of rights, and as such a crime, not a regulation on speech.

Dang! I am running out of space, I will continue...

reply to post by poet1b

---

Continuing...

The Constitution clearly recognizes the role of government in the regulation of business, including what may or may not be allowed in contractual relations. No contract should be written which results in one person or organization depriving another of their liberty, or unfairly deprives someone of their property. Just because some slick talker convinces someone to sign a contract that unfairly deprives another of their liberty or property, doesn't mean the government should have to recognize that contract as legal. For example, no contract should be written where any type of indentured servitude is included.

You are referring to the Commerce Clause, which states:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

~Article I, Section 8, Clause 3~

Commerce is not "business" as in that entity which an individual operates to sell goods and services, commerce is the act between buyer and seller, and Congress has been clearly limited by Constitution to regulate only that commerce between foreign Nations, and interstate commerce. It has been the egregious liberal interpretations of what constitutes interstate commerce that has become the problem. Indeed, Congress is relying heavily upon The Commerce Clause to justify their so called "health care reform".

In terms of your assertion that; "regulation of business, including what may or may not be allowed in contractual relations", no such authority has been granted government by the federal Constitution. Indeed, here is the text of what is said about contracts:

No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.

~Article I, Section 10~

How this can possibly be construed as a right being given to government to regulate contracts is beyond me. Contracts can not act contrary to law, but you and I have strong disagreements on what constitutes law. Where I argue that law is only that which protects the rights of individual, and any legislation that does not accomplish this is not law, you will argue the converse, and insist that if if is legislation it is law. Even so, it takes a great liberal leap to interpret Article I, Section 10 as being a grant of authority for government to regulate contracts. It can regulate interstate and international commerce, and if any contracts are made that are contrary to this authorized regulation, then that contract is null and void, but the federal government has no authority to regulate any contracts outside of their jurisdiction, and yet, they do anyway.

For example, no contract should be written where any type of indentured servitude is included.

The enforcement by all government, local, state, and federal, that coerces employees to sign a government contract in the form of Form W-4 is one of those contracts that include indentured servitude.

The government, as the sole enforcer of law, most certainly has the right to interfere to void contracts written under deceptive terms which do force people to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefits of others.

Government is not the sole enforcer of law, and citizens arrests are quite legal, and members of a jury are not government officials. Where you insist that government is the sole enforcer of bogus contracts, the Form W-4 stands as an illustration of what they are enforcing, and it ain't protecting people from the sacrifice of their lives and property for the benefit of others. It is indeed, quite the opposite.

No, the engagement of trade activities should not put groups beyond the scope of government, and the law.

The right to peaceably assemble says otherwise.

Market systems have nothing to do with the protection of individual rights, that is not the purpose of market system.

It is the purpose of the free market, and that freedom and protection of right begins with the freedom of choice, continues with the freedom to contract in ways not contrary to law, and ends in the right to petition government for a redress of grievances.

Only competitive markets are most compatible with free societies. The free market concept aims to eliminate the role of government in overseeing market activity in preventing fraud and abuse through business activities.

Poet, the first sentence of that paragraph is dead on, and then you dissolve into some deformation of what a free market is. The notion that law prevent any crime is simply naive. There may be some prevention of crime due to law, but that crime exists in spite of the law, should be more than ample evidence that it is not the purpose of law to prevent crime, but rather to put Justice back in, in the absence of Justice.

I agree, government has no right in regulating the rights of individuals, but certainly the government has the right to regulate business activities to prevent the abuse of individual rights.

The federal government has been given the grant to regulate international and interstate COMMERCE, which means in this narrow scope they can regulate the activities of both buyer and seller, not just business activities which constitute selling, but both buying and selling, and again it isn't to prevent abuse, but to establish an effective way to put Justice back in when Justice is absent.

I also agree that government currently engages in the violation if individual rights on numerous arenas.

I know you do, and it is why it is so easy to count you as my friend. We agree on much, and our major bone of contention is in the method used to protect rights.

The thing is, that the free market system is part of the problem that has lead government to abuse the rights of the individuals, as a results of increasing the power of corporations which have succeeded in taking far too much control of government.

Outside of black markets, and even then due to Congress' imprudent choice to fix the price of silver to gold, and then ultimately abandon a gold standard, a free market has never existed in The U.S., so it is hardly the fault of a free market that has never existed outside of the activities in black markets.

Just as ethnic quotas, political correctness, and multiculturalism have allowed the abuse of individual rights.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Glad to see you are working. We don't always have the time to do things we consider to be important.

This debate is important, and while it is great to be working, I am fortunate enough to be in business for myself, and here at my office, so I will make the time, when possible to check in with this site, and keep up with you as best I can.

reply to post by tigpoppa

---

Are you for real? Really? BUSH was our last true President? Scull and Bones at the mast?

Libertarianism has zero to do with "liberals". ZERO.

The last true Republican in office was Barry Goldwater. Presidents Nixon and Reagan were obviated. Goldwater was by definition a "Libertarian".

Nixon was ruined in the Illuminati controlled News Media for trying to end the Viet Nam War, their many "Cash Cows".

Reagan ( "A Time To Choose" on Google ) was nearly assassinated for refusing to follow their dictates. From then on President Reagan was no longer acting upon his own principles.

Neil Bush had lunch with Hinckleys Brother the day Before the attempt.
This was in the Washington Post the day after the shootings.

Investigate all of this and you will find there is a lot more to support this findings.

"Brotherhood of Darkness" by Dr Stan Montieth (on google) should spell it out for you.

Read "timeline of the Rothschilds" by DB Smith and A Hitchcock

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

---

I am short on time but some quick points.

When I wrote, "Those of us on the left side", I meant those of us on the left who feel disenfranchised by both parties, or those of us who are moderate whose politics are more on the left. I could say much more, but don't have the time.

We don't grant authority to government to grant liberty, we create government to defend liberty. If you know anything about developing a website, and setting up the "Apache" web server software, there is a set of directives named "Allow, Deny" that determine how things are allowed and denied.

For security you set it up,

Order deny, allow
deny all
allow text.

Where everything is denied first, and then only allowed as identified.

For complete public access, with some exceptions, the set up would be.

Order allow, deny
allow all
deny exe files.

This is latter is how government should treat liberties, allow all, and deny only the few things identified as exceptions that should not be allowed, in the example of speech, threats and bribes.

Bill Clinton Is Right: The Economy Really Does Do Better Under Democrats
  Posted 4 days ago with 46 member flags

I Changed Party Affiliation Today
  Posted 6 days ago with 20 member flags

Direct Democrcy
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags

In The Belly Of The Beast.
  Posted 7 days ago with 9 member flags

I\'m confused about Ron Paul
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags

\'Emergency\' Tax on the Rich Roils Britain
  Posted 13 days ago with 4 member flags

2009 news report proves paul ryan was correct about plant closure.
  Posted 12 days ago with 4 member flags

What is the true definition of a Liberal?
  Posted 8 days ago with 4 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: