quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

There's a little thing called the constitution that forbids it and an additional little something that says "All men are created equal".

Are you being serious?

The Constitution only forbids slavery because the victorious Union invaded and defeated the Confederacy, forcing the Thirteenth Amendment down the throats of the defeated Southerners. We funded the war with the first federal income tax, and Lincoln's wartime measures include curtailing civil liberties, most notably the suspension of habeas corpus. Slavery's forcible ending was a complete federal takeover of an issue formerly believed to belong to the states. Abolishing slavery was also a massive confiscation of what had been legally owned, complete with the Supreme Court's approval, property. Whether this was the right thing to do or not--I think it was--it was the polar opposite of libertarianism.

As for Jefferson's lovely words in the Declaration of Independence, they freed not a single slave, including his own.

quote:

Jefferson's words, IMO, made slavery immoral. (what can I say, he was a 1%er)

quote:

The 13th amendment to the constitution over 150 years ago made it illegal.

quote:

Therefore following the Constitution strictly makes it impossible to own slaves.

quote:

As a result the assumption that one could add "Dont like slavery, don't own one" is total stupidity per the Constitution.

quote:

You can decide you don't wish to be the world's policeman unless you are attacked.
Roosevelt said "Speak softly and carry a big stick". That is libertarian foreign policy.

quote:

( The Republican party kicked him out by the way for not kowtowing to the corporate interests of the time).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


And the difference between anarchy and libertarianism?
There are no taxes
There is no government
There are no laws restricting freedom or behavior.

Sounds like exactly what the libertarians want.

You should possibly study the subject before you look silly.

I have studied the subject. Libertarians do not want small government they want no government, or at the least none that costs them anything. They are simply anarchists with a different name and with a slightly different philosophy.

Then you havent studied much. You cant provide for the common defense with no government.
You cannot have roads.
You cannot have a postal system.
You cannot promote the general welfare and such other things that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution say we must do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

So, the better idea is to grow a massive government to meet an entitlement society so we don't have to have a small program to verify need.

This seems a bit of a straw man. Don't applicants for public assistance already have to prove that they need it? The big exceptions, of course, being Social Security and Medicare, which were based, rightly or wrongly, on age.

quote:

quote:

Actually, you were 2/3 of a person. That was a deplorable, but not out of the norm back then. That was also a compromise on the part of our Founders. That was also changed via Amendment. Thus, it is in the Constitution.

That doesn't quite hit the mark. Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in terms of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives, but they emphatically were not legal persons or citizens. Slaves were property that could be sold, beaten, raped, and forced to work without pay. I don't know what the law was regarding killing a slave. The Supreme Court was painfully clear about this in Scott v. Sanford (better known as the Dred Scott decision):
But there are two clauses in the Constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then formed.
One of these clauses reserves to each of the thirteen States the right to import slaves until the year 1808 if it thinks proper. And the importation which it thus sanctions was unquestionably of persons of the race of which we are speaking, as the traffic in slaves in the United States had always been confined to them. And by the other provision the States pledge themselves to each other to maintain the right of property of the master by delivering up to him any slave who may have escaped from his service, and be found within their respective territories. By the first above-mentioned clause, therefore, the right to purchase and hold this property is directly sanctioned and authorized for twenty years by the people who framed the Constitution. And by the second, they pledge themselves to maintain and uphold the right of the master in the manner specified, as long as the Government they then formed should endure. And these two provisions show conclusively that neither the description of persons therein referred to nor their descendants were embraced in any of the other provisions of the Constitution, for certainly these two clauses were not intended to confer on them or their posterity the blessings of liberty, or any of the personal rights so carefully provided for the citizen.
Emphasis mine.

quote:

It's funny: When I saw the black-and-white graphic earlier in the thread about libertarian viewpoints, I actually did wonder if it would be fair to add "Against slavery? Don't own one" to the list.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
I didn't say it was a better idea. I just wondered how you would going to administer this idea of saying who is truly needy or not. The honor system?

quote:

So you agree that we should can and should raise armies in times of need without having the money to pay for them. That isn't a libertarian idea...is it?

quote:

So it is better and more efficient to have a larger national entity to look after the people? Again, doesn't sound very libertarian.

quote:

Oh so the founding fathers weren't always correct? How can that be......So, there are things that happen in the history of men that can render an idea from the past to be not worthwhile in the present? And, you wonder why strict constitutionalism is bad?

quote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...

quote:

So you would do treaties? Why? I thought you wanted to keep our nose out of other peoples business. Which is it? Can't have it both ways.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

You can decide you don't wish to be the world's policeman unless you are attacked.
Roosevelt said "Speak softly and carry a big stick". That is libertarian foreign policy.

I think TR, though, was pretty comfortable with the idea of the US as a world policeman. He was constantly berating Woodrow Wilson for not intervening more intensely in Mexico and for pursuing every peaceful alternative he could before landing the nation in World War I.

quote:

( The Republican party kicked him out by the way for not kowtowing to the corporate interests of the time).

It was more complicated than that. After winning reelection in 1904, TR announced that we would not seek a third term in 1908. He essentially hand-picked William Howard Taft as his successor. TR swiftly became disenchanted with Taft and decided to regain the White House in 1912. At that point, primaries (which TR largely won) were not necessarily binding, and the Taft folks running the convention denied TR the nomination he craved. TR then bolted the party to run on the Progressive (aka Bull moose) ticket. Come the general election, TR trounced Taft; I think he may have been the only third party candidate to outscore a major party. But he lost to Woodrow Wilson. Apologies if I'm telling you things you already know!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

2.How do you suppose folks that live in areas where the Unemployment level is about 30% find a way to make their lives better? When, to even to a job, they have to be able to afford public transportation to get to that job. Is this like Self Deportation where you set the policy and the results magically happen?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

3. More aide. I agree with that one. Don't imagine there is a Democrat that doesn't.

4. Welfare reform to allow people to work and collect. I think you know Democrats are and have been behind that as well.


I am not trying to be thick. Its the details that always seem to trip up Libertarians.....Great ideas but they can't be made to fit real life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
None, in fact, that you thought you crushed any only points to how wrong you really are. lol. Simple first question and you evade it each time cause you know it drives a stake into the heart of your talking points. You are all over the place. Want things both ways. You can't have both. Either you want a strong federal gov't or you don't. Please don't tell me you can have a strong one and still be small.....bullshit.
Or yours and HillWilliams versions of Libertarianism are very very different.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Think of it as an investment.
Continued aid on a sliding scale to encourage people to gradually better their position. As it is now, a $100/month raise can cost someone $150 in benefits. No wonder people say fuckit.
Unlike a lot of others, I don't think folks on assistance are lazy. They just severely lack skills. (or they're WAY insane and really shouldn't be on the streets)
I rent office space to DHS and I see these people every day. They don't know how to balance a checkbook, go to a job interview or fill out an application. A lot of it is generational poverty and ignorance. A lot of it is the attitude that "God will provide". guess what? The Lord helps them that help themselves.
Aid will be contingent on improving skills. It's an investment.
If I use a carrot and stick to convince someone to learn a skill, I can get them AND their kids off welfare and paying into the system for generations to come.
It shouldn't be a handout. It should be a leg up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
None actually. Its been exhausted. You see us as all individuals not connected. You dont believe that when one of us is hurting and doing badly that it hurts us all. In fact, you welcome it. Sad especially considering where you live. But, you are free to believe what you want. As I said, I will turn you back to tazzy now....

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

So, are you saying that public assistance isn't scammed? A bunch of people just got nabbed for defrauding Medicare, too. And, if you choose to not support yourself while being capable, you can get on public assistance. Those people don't truly need it.

quote:

Sorry for the incorrect fraction (though I was close).

The classification of slaves was a compromise to get the Constitution ratified. States with huge slave populations both wanted them to be counted for representation and yet, to be considered property.

quote:

No, it would not be fair. Libertarians are not about infringing on other's rights. Slavery is wrong, and that has been encoded in the Constitution. How is it you would think that a Libertarian would support taking away someone's Freedoms and rights?

quote:

Maybe he berated Taft for intervention in Mexico because our citizens were being murdered by Villa. Pershing finally went after him unsuccessfully.

quote:

You are correct that he didn't get the nomination. Ever wonder why? Roosevelt was a thorn in the side of the big bankers and RR barons of the time. He didn't like them and they certainly didn't like him. They were used to behaving much as big oil and big pharma do now.

quote:

Your understanding of Libertarianism reminds me of another thread where someone has read one of the Gor books and is convinced he knows all there is about the subject.