Hints at sounds of screaching halt coming from Congress...

[heironymouspasparagus]

They aren't anarchists.  I am an anarchist.  But I also grew up somewhere along the line to the realization that there is a need for government, and in recent years, that need has reverted back to a similar, if less intense, version of where we were about 110 years ago with big companies run amuck and the government bought and paid for by those same corporations.  

ANY and ALL regulation, union activity, social rebellion in this country after the Civil War while maybe not 100% motivated by corporate excess, at least 60 to 70%.  And one of the best Republican Presidents we have ever had - besides Gerald Ford - warned us explicitly about a well developed problem that we were experiencing in the late 50s, which has done nothing but accelerate ever since.  (Eisenhower talking about the military-industrial complex.)

And the second big realization is that there IS no freedom.  Just because you have not run into the "wall" doesn't mean it isn't there.  Couple of quick examples; just ask the Mormons about their treatment concerning just about everything from the founder of same to the issue of polygamy.  Yeah, there's some religious freedom.  (No, I am not Mormon - I have friends who are, but I think it is all kind of odd - but they have incredible family values, as well as many other exceptional values like being prepared - best Boy Scouts in the world, and avoiding debt, that the rest of our society could not only learn from but SHOULD embrace.)

And the religious practices of pretty much every Native American tribe.  Official US policy for about 400 years was extermination.  Of what is arguably the single most "free" society the world has ever seen.  Harsh way of life a lot of times, but true personal liberty within a tribal group was incredible.  And since we are NOT all about freedom, it had to go.  (Kill 'em all...let God sort 'em out....)

And the latest, greatest example of our "love of freedom" would have to be the Patriot Act.  (In case someone wants to dwell on how the previous examples were "ancient history".)  And we could talk about Ford Motor getting the military to come in and machine gun their employees.  And Kent state.  Kids throwing rocks at 'armored' soldiers with M-1, 30-06's.  Or our support of dozens of cheesy little tin-horn dictators, the lamenting and lashing out against, and in some cases working actively to depose FAIRLY elected democratic leaders.  Talk about your military-industrial complex!!  We SAY we support democracy and freedom and we turn around and our government DOES; Iran.  Iraq.  Afghanistan.  Panama.  Venezuela.  Philippines.  Viet Nam.  Nicaragua.  Israel/Palestine.  Okinawa.  All in the name of democracy and freedom.

As I have ranted about before, we as a society have no sense or knowledge of history, possibly because we are so young, but I think more likely because we are so arrogant.  We feel that the world should be grateful for our imperialistic voyeurism (what Eisenhower warned about), and cannot understand how they could be so mad or hate us so much.  It's because we don't know what happened in 1951.  Or 1976.  Or 1947.  Or much of anything.

And don't really seem to care much.

[Gaspar]

I thought for a few moments that my intellect might be failing me. That I might be misusing a word. So I got out the old college Websters to look up the word "Anarchy". That was worthwhile. Every Libertarian should do that before they start listing their bumper sticker politics.

Anarchy: 1. Absence of government. 2 Lawless confusion and political disorder. 3. General disorder [Gk. anarchias without a leader]

So, yes G(1), freedom is anarchy of sorts. Freedom from government. And the Greek word kind of brings to mind Tea Partiers doesn't it? Who is their leader? Do they really want any leader? Judging by the way they recently treated Rand Paul one wonders if they only consider a "leader" anyone who agrees with the group.

Anarchism: 1. The theory that all forms of government are incompatible with individual and social liberty and should be abolished. (philosophic anarchism- The advocacy of voluntary cooperation and mutual aid as a substitute for the coercive power of the state).

That nails it. The G's are philosophic anarchists.
Who are fighting for freedom of course. They are freedom fighters. All hail the freedom fighters may they always have freedom fries at their table and freedom flags pinned to their lapels.

No.  Libertarianism is based on Jeffersonian principals.  Government has a purpose.  A very necessary but narrowly defined purpose.  Our constitution was constructed to empower government within narrow constraints.  To enable government to serve people without the threat of people serving government.

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)

Nice try.  Thanks for playing.

[we vs us]

Interestingly, our libertarian conversations around here always seem to be centered on how government has failed so spectacularly at governing anything, and thus should be radically reduced to virtually nil.  We talk very little about how government could be used to advance libertarianism. 

That's why you seem like such an anarchist at heart, Gassy.  There's never ANY role for government in your politics.   

[Hoss]

Interestingly, our libertarian conversations around here always seem to be centered on how government has failed so spectacularly at governing anything, and thus should be radically reduced to virtually nil.  We talk very little about how government could be used to advance libertarianism. 

That's why you seem like such an anarchist at heart, Gassy.  There's never ANY role for government in your politics.   

There never really is for tried and true Libertarians, which is what the Tea Partiers pretend to espouse...the reduction or removal of gubmint services....


....until it interrupts those gubmint checks they've been getting.

[Gaspar]

Interestingly, our libertarian conversations around here always seem to be centered on how government has failed so spectacularly at governing anything, and thus should be radically reduced to virtually nil.  We talk very little about how government could be used to advance libertarianism. 

That's why you seem like such an anarchist at heart, Gassy.  There's never ANY role for government in your politics.   

Government should never be used as a tool to advance anything.  Government is force.  If you wish to advance a political mindset or philosophy, that is done through education and understanding, and the free and open communication of the people. 

[waterboy]

Dude, you're not a player. You're just a philosophical mule. You act as though Jefferson was the only keen intellect who signed the Constitution. He was a star but certainly only one view among many of government operations.

BTW, any other "libbies" recieve e-mail from a sender known as "consigliere" that links to a medical marijuana operation in Cali? Someone here thinks they're cute.

[Gaspar]

Dude, you're not a player. You're just a philosophical mule. You act as though Jefferson was the only keen intellect who signed the Constitution. He was a star but certainly only one view among many of government operations.

BTW, any other "libbies" recieve e-mail from a sender known as "consigliere" that links to a medical marijuana operation in Cali? Someone here thinks they're cute.

Very true. 

Never heard of your "consigliere" friend.

[Gaspar]

I find it entertaining how when one begins to talk about very simple concepts of individual freedom, and basic constitutional foundations that our government is based on, liberals begin to twist and foam.

I am saying nothing controversial.  The role of government interpreted by a libertarian is fundamentally identical to what is presented in the constitution.  Therefore this leads me to believe that the constitution is what liberals have issues with.

Help me to understand.  Do liberals view the constitution as antiquated or somehow irrelevant?

[Conan71]

I find it entertaining how when one begins to talk about very simple concepts of individual freedom, and basic constitutional foundations that our government is based on, liberals begin to twist and foam.

I am saying nothing controversial.  The role of government interpreted by a libertarian is fundamentally identical to what is presented in the constitution.  Therefore this leads me to believe that the constitution is what liberals have issues with.

Help me to understand.  Do liberals view the constitution as antiquated or somehow irrelevant?

No, it's just easier to resort to character insults and ad hominems when they either don't agree or simply don't understand what you are talking about. 

in re: "anarchy"

[Hoss]

No, it's just easier to resort to character insults and ad hominems when they either don't agree or simply don't understand what you are talking about. 

in re: "anarchy"

Let's not isolate this to just 'libbies'.  I know of at least one 'conservative' poster on here whose modus operandi could be considered just this.

[Gaspar]

No, it's just easier to resort to character insults and ad hominems when they either don't agree or simply don't understand what you are talking about. 

in re: "anarchy"

Yes, but it's un-necessary.  The idea is to develop through debate.  Defend what you can and surrender the rest.

If I do not understand, then teach me.  Don't stomp around like an angry teenage girl.

[Gaspar]

Don't hurt yourself. 

[nathanm]

Government should never be used as a tool to advance anything.  Government is force.  If you wish to advance a political mindset or philosophy, that is done through education and understanding, and the free and open communication of the people. 

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that government is the sole entity capable of using force. In times past, corporations used force in our own country. In others, they still do. I can use force; you can use force. Collectively, we can muster a large amount of force, whether through buying it or convincing people to use it on our behalf through rhetoric.

As waterboy mentioned, libertarians do not have a monopoly on the Constitution. The true libertarian constitution (the Articles of Confederation) produced a spectacular failure of government. Our present Constitution was a mish-mash of all sorts of different points of view, one of which was indeed the libertarian point of view. It has since evolved further from being the purely libertarian document you make it out to be as it has been amended over the years.

[waterboy]

Someone else accused me of equating anarchy with freedom. I simply responded with a Websters definition. Turns out they're the philosophical anarchist.

Someone else gets pissy whenever their view of the world conflicts with differing views, refuses to be taught and stomps around like a teenager. The teaching begins when the student arrives.

You guys set the ground rules, define others to fit your world, (I was never considered liberal till I posted here), then seem perplexed when we all don't bow to your obvious superior views. You might consider re-analyzing those views. GI-GO.

I am not a spokesperson for the left. I'm just a guy who has FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson era views. Views that worked pretty well till Reagan, Bush & Paul surfaced. Much has been written here and elsewhere describing Liberal, Progressive, Moderate views. Reread them. The same views btw that our founding fathers (Yes! They were Liberals!) used to write the constitution.  Now you're interested?

[we vs us]

No, it's just easier to resort to character insults and ad hominems when they either don't agree or simply don't understand what you are talking about. 

in re: "anarchy"

From me, no and no.  It ain't an ad hominem, though I very much wonder to what degree Gassy believes the things he believes. 

Gassy:  I believe the Constitution is one of the foundational documents of the modern world.  Taken with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, you're looking at a corpus that is as important as the Magna Carta, or Hammurabi's Code.  But I'm at a loss to understand how and why your reading of it qualifies as originalist.  Your reading seems highly selective, and your opinion of what it should accomplish seems very narrow when compared with the mechanisms the document itself sets up to mediate the losses of liberty.

To me, the Constitution guarantees that the liberty we will inevitably lose when being ruled will be adequately checked and balanced, and that those losses will be slow and agreed upon by as many people as possible.  It guarantees that the majority rules but that the minority will be protected.  And it guarantees that the document itself can change with the times.  And the Founders structured the government itself -- all three branches of government, from soup to nuts -- to help mediate our freedoms in the context of a governed society.

And yes, when I say "mediate our freedoms," you're going to break out in hives.  But really, our freedoms aren't absolute and haven't been since day one.  The existence of the judicial branch alone is evidence enough that there has to be a mechanism making sure our freedoms and our government are in balance. Look further into how the Judicial interfaces with the creation of and enforcement of the law -- how it will and will not intervene for certain things -- and it's clear that your freedoms aren't meant to always and cleanly win out. 

Anyhow, I don't find that we're having a lot of logical conversations about libertarianism.  I feel like our conversations veer off into the ideological almost immediately, and I can't get a good factual read about what you want, rather than what you don't want -- which seems to me to be everything. If we were trying to serve together in Congress, say, I would have no idea how to approach a relationship with you politically, because you seem hostile to the act of governance itself.