Can Tea Party reconcile libertarianism and social conservatism?

[ClayTrainor]

I'm interested in knowing what kind of questions you have. I may or may not have a response, but I often find questions to be more enlightening than extended discourse.

Are human rights natural, or should they determined by pieces of paper that politicians sign?

 

[Travlyr]

Considering that there have been real world examples of private courts and voluntary systems of governance, I would have to argue, that, that dilemma has all ready been demolished. We even have a good template for a voluntary system of law in todays world -- The Xeer. Even going back to the Anarchist Quakers shows that this argument is patently false. Besides, what have we to lose if this is the case?

I would suspect that the Quakers understood property rights better than the products of the modern day government schooling systems. Yet, what have we to lose? Not much.

That is something I never understood. You pose all these questions, but fail to realize that the current situation, both today and in 1787, or 1797, or 1836 were essentially the same.

Maybe I do realize. Did societies of the past celebrate by burning, bashing and destroying the property of others? Modern day... this is accepted as a normal celebration. How about looting, graffiti, leaving a bike unlocked, or keys in the car? Respect for the property of others is not one of the virtues of the day.

Instead of there being no institutionalized theft, the graft plunderers were all ready in power, so I don't see how dismantling that power is in any way shape or form disturbing.

It's not institutionalized theft that I was referring to. It is human behavior to gain the most advantage with the least effort. It is much easier to steal a car than to earn enough money to buy one.

Isn't it more disturbing to defeat yourself before you even begin, by saying it just is?

No, I was merely pointing out that theft of property has to be dealt with no matter if you have a state society or voluntary society. That's all.
In our state society institutionalized theft is allowed, but the people are threatened with jail... it's not a just society... I get that... but the threat of being put in jail for theft is a strong deterrent for most people.
In a voluntary society... I'm not sure how people would deal with it. It's no biggie to me... I'm simply pointing out that to go from modern day understanding of "government is good"... "they give you free stuff"... to a voluntary society will take some time... like one or two generations of deprogramming.

There was a wonderful speech by Lew not too long ago that addressed this issue. I'll try and find it, but I can't promise.

Thanks, if you find it please share. In the mean time... I'll look for it.

So by dismantling the system you stop the easy route. It isn't easy setting up a State in a Stateless society, just ask the UN, US, and Ethiopia about Somalia.

That is a good thing. Yet, going from a state society to a stateless society has many hurdles as well. Worth it?... I could do it... there are many who can't.
Most importantly... I would love to live in a stateless society, yet I accept the state. It is what it is.


My main point is: governments are not the problem!... The culprit is whoever controls society. And who controls society? Whoever controls the supply of money controls society. When this fact becomes understood in the mainstream the people will regain their liberties. Then, and only then, will the people be able to reorganize societies to their wishes.

 

[Number19]

What are you trying to get at here?

In the two consecutive sentences I highlighted, you imply that those of us who would work toward a more limited government don't understand or accept the non-aggression principle and would attempt to use force to coerce you. Your choice of expression is inappropriate.

 

[Number19]

Are human rights natural, or should they determined by pieces of paper that politicians sign?

My original question was directed toward the following statement, "...I have a few immigration questions floating around the statists seem incapable of answering...".

Perhaps you are asking a leading question, a technique I often use, so my immediate response is that human rights are innate within the core of a person, something which is just "known". Therefore they are natural.

 

[andrewh817]

A government that is constructed with the sole purpose of never exceeding a small level of authority and scope is a very libertarian notion and a worthy goal. Following the Constitution to the letter would likely result in a highly libertarian society. I think. Maybe.

I would like to know your thoughts.

Here's the problem, anaconda. This idea was already tried, and in 5-7 generations spawned the most monstrous state that has ever existed. So how about instead of a societal REVOLUTION (returning to ways of old) let's have a societal EVOLUTION (and work from principles to establish a free society).

The burden of proof is NOT on the anarchist. The burden of proof lies with the statists, whose ideology has been practiced in EVERY FORM IMAGINABLE for over 1000 years and has never led a society to anything other than moral and financial bankruptcy!

 

[Number19]

( American Constitutional government ) spawned the most monstrous state that has ever existed...

I don't think so.

Anarchist may or may not have a "burden of proof", but they do have the burden of convincing 6.7 billion people to go along with their philosophy.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't think so.

Anarchist may or may not have a "burden of proof", but they do have the burden of convincing 6.7 billion people to go along with their philosophy.

You don't? What other empire has been so huge, with such a military/financial stranglehold on the rest of the world? Rome certainly wasn't. ("The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire", as Voltaire used to say)

 

[Number19]

You don't? What other empire has been so huge, with such a military/financial stranglehold on the rest of the world? Rome certainly wasn't. ("The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire", as Voltaire used to say)

No, not really. I'm willing to adopt incrementalism. The immediate goal is for the Republican Party to simply regain Congress. The goal after that is to keep pressure on the Republicans to actually start rolling back government.

 

[CCTelander]

No, not really. I'm willing to adopt incrementalism. The immediate goal is for the Republican Party to simply regain Congress. The goal after that is to keep pressure on the Republicans to actually start rolling back government.

Sure, because that's worked SO well in the past.

What was that about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

 

[Number19]

Sure, because that's worked SO well in the past.

What was that about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

It has worked. It has worked VERY well. The liberals have used incrementalism since 1913 to bring America to where it is today.

 

[CCTelander]

It has worked. It has worked VERY well. The liberals have used incrementalism since 1913 to bring America to where it is today.

And there are very specific reasons why it has worked in that context and for those ends, but which also preclude any possibility of it ever working in the reverse.

However, as I mentioned in another thread, I'm pretty much out of emotional steam for these discussions. Maybe some of the others here are aware of what I'm alluding to and can pick up the ball and run with it.

If not, maybe in the near future I'll have more energy for seemingly pointless debate. Until then, good luck to you.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Sure, because that's worked SO well in the past.

What was that about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

haha! FTW!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It has worked. It has worked VERY well. The liberals have used incrementalism since 1913 to bring America to where it is today.

You think liberals did it alone? You think Woodrow Wilson was a liberal? Nixon? Bush? Please don't fall into the dialectical trap the establishment lays for you!

 

[someperson]

You think liberals did it alone? You think Woodrow Wilson was a liberal? Nixon? Bush? Please don't fall into the dialectical trap the establishment lays for you!

+1

 

[Number19]

And there are very specific reasons why it has worked in that context and for those ends, but which also preclude any possibility of it ever working in the reverse.

However, as I mentioned in another thread, I'm pretty much out of emotional steam for these discussions. Maybe some of the others here are aware of what I'm alluding to and can pick up the ball and run with it.

If not, maybe in the near future I'll have more energy for seemingly pointless debate. Until then, good luck to you.

Yes, I engage only rarely. It is rather pointless.

 

[CCTelander]

Yes, I engage only rarely. It is rather pointless.

Just wanted to make it clear that I meant no insult by my last post. I'm just kind of weary at the moment.

 

[Number19]

Just wanted to make it clear that I meant no insult by my last post. I'm just kind of weary at the moment.

None taken. Honest differences and expression of ideas should never be taken negatively - only deliberate insult and personal attack.

 

[anaconda]

What makes government so magical that it is the only entity capable of building roads or providing for a defense? When has the government ever done better than the free market at providing services?

How about the argument that the space program resulted in tons of spin off technologies that were ultimately undertaken by the private sector? Resulting in magnitudes more GDP than the space program investment? i.e. that government defrayed initial R & D costs that would have proved prohibitive for many tech risk takers?

 

[anaconda]

Here's the problem, anaconda. This idea was already tried, and in 5-7 generations spawned the most monstrous state that has ever existed. So how about instead of a societal REVOLUTION (returning to ways of old) let's have a societal EVOLUTION (and work from principles to establish a free society).

The burden of proof is NOT on the anarchist. The burden of proof lies with the statists, whose ideology has been practiced in EVERY FORM IMAGINABLE for over 1000 years and has never led a society to anything other than moral and financial bankruptcy!

But the idea was rather successful for quite a good while and did seem to have a relatively significant and unique libertarian identity. I wonder if the experiment would be improved with a few more specifics in the Constitution? Regarding central banks, fiat money, war declaration, and a very rigid definition of regulating interstate commerce?

 

[tremendoustie]

But the idea was rather successful for quite a good while and did seem to have a relatively significant and unique libertarian identity. I wonder if the experiment would be improved with a few more specifics in the Constitution? Regarding central banks, fiat money, war declaration, and a very rigid definition of regulating interstate commerce?

Here's a great, bulletproof specific I suggest for the constitution, which covers all of the issues you mention and more. Get rid of everything else -- many words make loopholes. Here's what it will say:

"No individual, or institution, has the right to initiate force against anyone else, or their property".