Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Libertarianism vs conservatism

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 12:50:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.politicsdaily.com...

The issues I have with this article are the following:

1. It presumes that libertarianism would lead to anarchy, which would 'make murder an acceptable norm' which is not even worth defending.

2. It contends that conservatism is constitutionally coherent. On one hand, it proclaims its respect for the constitution, on the other- it celebrates US intervention in other parts of the world, its aggressive foreign policy. "Authorization of force", as far as I understand, is not validated by the US constitution. It is a strictly post WW2 validation. Drug prohibition would require constitutional amendment. So would federal aid to faith based organizations.

I'll look over it once again later. But these were the major points I had an issue with.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:01:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 12:50:48 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.politicsdaily.com...

The issues I have with this article are the following:

1. It presumes that libertarianism would lead to anarchy, which would 'make murder an acceptable norm' which is not even worth defending.

2. It contends that conservatism is constitutionally coherent. On one hand, it proclaims its respect for the constitution, on the other- it celebrates US intervention in other parts of the world, its aggressive foreign policy. "Authorization of force", as far as I understand, is not validated by the US constitution. It is a strictly post WW2 validation. Drug prohibition would require constitutional amendment. So would federal aid to faith based organizations.

I'll look over it once again later. But these were the major points I had an issue with.

Foreign intervention would fall well under the means of military defense and power to commit war.

As far as the drug war policy, I agree that it is kind of unconstitutional. The courts justify it through the "right to regulate commerce".
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 3:44:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 1:01:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:50:48 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.politicsdaily.com...

The issues I have with this article are the following:

1. It presumes that libertarianism would lead to anarchy, which would 'make murder an acceptable norm' which is not even worth defending.

2. It contends that conservatism is constitutionally coherent. On one hand, it proclaims its respect for the constitution, on the other- it celebrates US intervention in other parts of the world, its aggressive foreign policy. "Authorization of force", as far as I understand, is not validated by the US constitution. It is a strictly post WW2 validation. Drug prohibition would require constitutional amendment. So would federal aid to faith based organizations.

I'll look over it once again later. But these were the major points I had an issue with.

Foreign intervention would fall well under the means of military defense and power to commit war.

As far as the drug war policy, I agree that it is kind of unconstitutional. The courts justify it through the "right to regulate commerce".

Do they actually justify drug war that way, or are you just guessing? I would guess that they justify it with the "general welfare" clause, because drugs are bad, m'k.

Furthermore, how can you regulate that which is not legal?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:11:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 3:44:57 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/28/2012 1:01:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:50:48 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.politicsdaily.com...

The issues I have with this article are the following:

1. It presumes that libertarianism would lead to anarchy, which would 'make murder an acceptable norm' which is not even worth defending.

2. It contends that conservatism is constitutionally coherent. On one hand, it proclaims its respect for the constitution, on the other- it celebrates US intervention in other parts of the world, its aggressive foreign policy. "Authorization of force", as far as I understand, is not validated by the US constitution. It is a strictly post WW2 validation. Drug prohibition would require constitutional amendment. So would federal aid to faith based organizations.

I'll look over it once again later. But these were the major points I had an issue with.

Foreign intervention would fall well under the means of military defense and power to commit war.

As far as the drug war policy, I agree that it is kind of unconstitutional. The courts justify it through the "right to regulate commerce".

Do they actually justify drug war that way, or are you just guessing? I would guess that they justify it with the "general welfare" clause, because drugs are bad, m'k.

the general welfare clause doesn't mean anything because its just a clause in the beginning that says the purpose of the government. Not how it plans to achieve it. It isn't part of the power specifically granted to congress in the constitution. If that were the case, you could justify anything under the "welfare clause".

Furthermore, how can you regulate that which is not legal?

Illegalization it IS a regulation.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:52:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 4:11:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2012 3:44:57 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/28/2012 1:01:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:50:48 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.politicsdaily.com...

The issues I have with this article are the following:

1. It presumes that libertarianism would lead to anarchy, which would 'make murder an acceptable norm' which is not even worth defending.

2. It contends that conservatism is constitutionally coherent. On one hand, it proclaims its respect for the constitution, on the other- it celebrates US intervention in other parts of the world, its aggressive foreign policy. "Authorization of force", as far as I understand, is not validated by the US constitution. It is a strictly post WW2 validation. Drug prohibition would require constitutional amendment. So would federal aid to faith based organizations.

I'll look over it once again later. But these were the major points I had an issue with.

Foreign intervention would fall well under the means of military defense and power to commit war.

As far as the drug war policy, I agree that it is kind of unconstitutional. The courts justify it through the "right to regulate commerce".

Do they actually justify drug war that way, or are you just guessing? I would guess that they justify it with the "general welfare" clause, because drugs are bad, m'k.

the general welfare clause doesn't mean anything because its just a clause in the beginning that says the purpose of the government. Not how it plans to achieve it. It isn't part of the power specifically granted to congress in the constitution. If that were the case, you could justify anything under the "welfare clause".

Furthermore, how can you regulate that which is not legal?

Illegalization it IS a regulation.

Right. I suppose regulating commerce is different than regualting an item. I transposed the two contexts, sorry.

Since drugs are illegal, you can't regulate their practices (sanitation, purity, etc.). Which is different than saying you can't sell it at all, which regulates commerce only.