Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

America was Libertarian and failed!

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 4:43:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well, just to reiterate, i am doing a paper on the Founding fathers and found that during the years of the Articles of Confederation we were highly libertarian.
It did not work. We were extremely limited government, states rights, democratic and it did not work!

What do you think?

Oh, also I have found out a lot about the founders that make me think hard about what I believe!
PhreedomPhan
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 6:39:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 4:43:52 AM, comoncents wrote:
Well, just to reiterate, i am doing a paper on the Founding fathers and found that during the years of the Articles of Confederation we were highly libertarian.
It did not work. We were extremely limited government, states rights, democratic and it did not work!


What do you think?


Oh, also I have found out a lot about the founders that make me think hard about what I believe!

Not much works if someone sabotages it, and I believe that's what happened to the Articles. I've read more than once that the country failed under the Articles because those who wanted a strong, unlimited central government wanted it to fail. Also, the stories of failure were greatly exaggerated.

Like you, I began to view the "Founders" in a slightly different light. For the most part they could be divided into two groups, those with local and state interests and those with national interests. Farmers, plantation owners, small businessmen and the like preferred decentralized government. Those with interstate commerce interests wanted a strong central government that they could use to protect and further their interests. As it was reported out of the Convention, the Constitution was a blueprint for a centralized tyranny of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. In other words, exactly what has been created from a century or two of "liberal" vs. "conservative" dog and pony show.

What forebodes ill for the American people and, in fact, all of the peoples of the world is that those interstate interests of the founding era are now global. They want government to be global. It is they who form the "New World Order" and promote world government to control the workers in the great anthill they are making of mankind. Anyone who thinks that that government will be "democratic" or in anyway "liberal" in the classic sense is a fool.

If you're writing a paper on the founding, you might be able to find some fascinating stuff on yamaguchy.netfirms.com. There is a great collection of old books going back to the early 19th Century. Too, if you haven't already done it, find a copy of the "anti-federalist" papers. These were the writings of the true federalists. The "federalist" papers were the writings of economic royalist Hamilton and his nationalist gang who usurped the federalist name to deceive the people.

Just for fun, if you haven't already done so, you might want to look into the role of the Bank of England in our founding. I think it was Baring Brothers who controlled it at the time. The Rothschilds had not come on the scene yet. You might also want to question whether we really ever broke away from England.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 9:00:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Articles of Confederation gave the central government too little power, so the government rewrote it.

The Constitution ended up giving the central government way too much power once the federal government applied horribly loose interpretation. The government doesn't want to rewrite it.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 12:13:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Just comes to prove how fail libertarianism is. ;)

I can't decide which is more utopian, marxism(as in actual collective, statelessness marxism) or libertarianism?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 1:11:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 4:43:52 AM, comoncents wrote:
Well, just to reiterate, i am doing a paper on the Founding fathers and found that during the years of the Articles of Confederation we were highly libertarian.
It did not work. We were extremely limited government
No, we were extremely limited FEDERAL government.

states rights
The notion that states have special, unique rights, is entirely contrary to libertarianism. Any claim to a state having a given right has to be made on the same principle one applies to other parties' rights to qualify as any form of libertarianism, and it has to essentially disappear the moment the state violates someone else's rights.

democratic
The notion that majorities have special, unique rights is entirely contrary to libertarianism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 5:14:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hilarious. Our country's failure has been directly tied to the abandonment of libertarian principles over the last 100 years (individualism, self-reliance, small government, fiscal conservatism, low taxes). Haven't you noticed the more liberal we've become, the closer to a day of reconning we've come. Well it's finally here. Liberalism is like debt-- it seems like a lot of fun until it catches up with you and swallows you whole.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 5:37:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 5:14:41 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Hilarious. Our country's failure has been directly tied to the abandonment of libertarian principles over the last 100 years (individualism, self-reliance, small government, fiscal conservatism, low taxes). Haven't you noticed the more liberal we've become, the closer to a day of reconning we've come. Well it's finally here. Liberalism is like debt-- it seems like a lot of fun until it catches up with you and swallows you whole.

I don't think it's fair to say the U.S. is a "failure." We may have economically unsound policies and a huge deficit, but we're not a third world country and at least we have things like civil rights which is more than I can say for everyone. Anyway I mostly agree with you, but let's not forget that wars - which are not typically supported by liberals - are incredibly expensive and have contributed to the state of the economy. Some people also make an argument for too little regulation being heavily related to things like the mortgage crisis as well. There is also the notion that without social programs the state of the country could be a lot worse... perhaps not regarding government debt, but living conditions in general for the majority of people. Libertarians say that there has never been a completely libertarian society so you can't knock it, but similarly, you can't praise it either if whether or not it would work is just speculatory in the end. You guys are just lol. You make it sound as if it would be this magical and flawless regime. But if it were that ideal, then it'd exist somewhere besides the internet.
President of DDO
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:11:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 1:11:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/27/2010 4:43:52 AM, comoncents wrote:
Well, just to reiterate, i am doing a paper on the Founding fathers and found that during the years of the Articles of Confederation we were highly libertarian.
It did not work. We were extremely limited government
No, we were extremely limited FEDERAL government.


Is that not a libertarian principle?
I am not libertarian so...

states rights
The notion that states have special, unique rights, is entirely contrary to libertarianism. Any claim to a state having a given right has to be made on the same principle one applies to other parties' rights to qualify as any form of libertarianism, and it has to essentially disappear the moment the state violates someone else's rights.


Well, the libertarians I have talked with believe in states rights.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:19:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Like Lwerd, I fail to see how the United States is a "failure." It's the country that has had the most influence on the world ever. You can't go to a single corner of this planet without seeing some form of American influence present. Its citizens enjoy an economy unmatched in power and influence, and have a government that for all intents and purposes, isn't as dictatorial as some people keep claiming. There's a reason why millions of immigrants go to the US every year, and it ain't 'cause Americans are so nice to be around. Or is this what a "failure" of a state is?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:22:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:19:33 PM, Volkov wrote:
Like Lwerd, I fail to see how the United States is a "failure." It's the country that has had the most influence on the world ever. You can't go to a single corner of this planet without seeing some form of American influence present. Its citizens enjoy an economy unmatched in power and influence, and have a government that for all intents and purposes, isn't as dictatorial as some people keep claiming. There's a reason why millions of immigrants go to the US every year, and it ain't 'cause Americans are so nice to be around. Or is this what a "failure" of a state is?

Who said it was a failure... Did i miss something?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:23:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:22:52 PM, comoncents wrote:
Who said it was a failure... Did i miss something?

Indeed, you did.

At 2/27/2010 5:14:41 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Hilarious. Our country's failure has been directly tied to the abandonment of libertarian principles over the last 100 years (individualism, self-reliance, small government, fiscal conservatism, low taxes). Haven't you noticed the more liberal we've become, the closer to a day of reconning we've come. Well it's finally here. Liberalism is like debt-- it seems like a lot of fun until it catches up with you and swallows you whole.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:29:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:23:48 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/27/2010 8:22:52 PM, comoncents wrote:
Who said it was a failure... Did i miss something?

Indeed, you did.

At 2/27/2010 5:14:41 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Hilarious. Our country's failure has been directly tied to the abandonment of libertarian principles over the last 100 years (individualism, self-reliance, small government, fiscal conservatism, low taxes). Haven't you noticed the more liberal we've become, the closer to a day of reconning we've come. Well it's finally here. Liberalism is like debt-- it seems like a lot of fun until it catches up with you and swallows you whole.

What is the matter with liberalism?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:30:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:29:47 PM, comoncents wrote:
What is the matter with liberalism?

I don't know, is there something wrong with it?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:35:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Haven't you noticed the more liberal we've become, the closer to a day of reconning we've come. Well it's finally here. Liberalism is like debt-- it seems like a lot of fun until it catches up with you and swallows you whole.

What is the matter with liberalism?

He talks about it like there is.

I think that to claim an ideology is perfect is just a falsity.
Liberal, conservative, libertarian, utilitarian, mercantilism, any of it.

What is the ideology of morals, conscience or justice?
NONE!

It is up to the individual to determine those things.
I urge everyone to abandon set ideologies and gain a new one.
The ideology of yourself.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:37:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:35:47 PM, comoncents wrote:
It is up to the individual to determine those things.
I urge everyone to abandon set ideologies and gain a new one.
The ideology of yourself.

Just to note, that's an individualist ideology. :D
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:40:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:11:09 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 2/27/2010 1:11:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/27/2010 4:43:52 AM, comoncents wrote:
Well, just to reiterate, i am doing a paper on the Founding fathers and found that during the years of the Articles of Confederation we were highly libertarian.
It did not work. We were extremely limited government
No, we were extremely limited FEDERAL government.


Is that not a libertarian principle?
Nope. Limiting the federal government from interfering with the states is not particularly libertarian, and it's probably counterproductive considering how much easier it is to get a state to sign on to some particular tyranny. Limiting government as such from initiating force or fraud is what's looked for.

states rights
The notion that states have special, unique rights, is entirely contrary to libertarianism. Any claim to a state having a given right has to be made on the same principle one applies to other parties' rights to qualify as any form of libertarianism, and it has to essentially disappear the moment the state violates someone else's rights.


Well, the libertarians I have talked with believe in states rights.
You can put a mark in the other column on your tally then.

Lots of poseur-libertaians believe in states rights. It's part of why they're poseurs.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:44:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:42:55 PM, comoncents wrote:
Well, I am not Libertarian.
I may agree with some ideas but I can not claim it.

You appear to be a constitutionalist with a libertarian bend. I don't know if you would agree.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:46:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:44:39 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/27/2010 8:42:55 PM, comoncents wrote:
Well, I am not Libertarian.
I may agree with some ideas but I can not claim it.

You appear to be a constitutionalist with a libertarian bend. I don't know if you would agree.

Yeah, I would agree.
PhreedomPhan
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 4:58:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Comon, there is no fixed set of beliefs that would define a "libertarian." True, some who call themselves libertarians view any who deviate in the slightest from their own orthodoxy as heretics, blasphemers, maybe even heathens. I know you are young and relatively inexperienced, but I'm certain you have the intelligence to recognize that such a mentality is more indicative of a "Grand Inquisitor" than of a libertarian.

Consider the political "spectrum." Taken, I believe, from science, a spectrum runs the gamut from the shortest to the longest wavelength. I think it would follow that a political spectrum would run from the least government (anarchy) to the most government (totalitarianism). You might reverse that by saying from the least liberty (totalitarianism) to the most liberty (anarchy).

Like the physical spectrums, the political spectrum has no clear cut divisions. You can't say, "This point is liberalism, this conservatism, this libertarian. Each can appear in many shades within the somewhat vague borders of its "bandwidth."

Consider, too, that each individual can have his own internal spectrum that might be tempered by his knowledge and experience. I think most libertarians recognize the old adage that that government is best which governs least. Some would add "and closest to home." Once I saw a group called "Libertarians for World Government." Maybe they were truly naive enough to believe the people could have some control over so remote and large a government. Maybe they were part of the globalist gang trying to create the illusion that "mainstream" libertarianism could support such a government. I don't know.

Given the current circumstance of a near totalitarian government in Washington (it would only take a declaration of a "national emergency" coupled with a president with the guts to declare marshal law to erase the "near"), I think most libertarians would support restoration of "States' Rights" as a check against Washington's power. Certainly the threat of a Huey Long taking control of each of the 50 states is far more remote than an FDR or George Bush taking power in Washington. If we take that first step toward restoring a balance, then we can move on to correcting some of the State constitutions to extend individual liberty. I know the constitution of Pennsylvania inverts the provision that all powers not granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and to the people. In Pennsylvania, all rights not specifically granted to the people are reserved to the State. That would have to be reversed once we get some power back to the States. For now, the States are little more than administrative provinces of the Washingtonian Empire.

Another thing that has always been a central point for libertarians is free trade. Bastiat showed the foolishness of protective tariffs gone amuck when he pointed out that, if exporting the product of France and blocking imports was the way to make the country wealthy, then all they had to do was load all of the produce of France into ships and sink them at sea. But even this fundamental principle must be tempered by the libertarian's knowledge, experience, and personal morality. Would a libertarian favor "free trade" with a nation that used virtual slave labor? We set up such trade with Red China. Could a libertarian really support that?

I can see some libertarians who don't know or understand the background or the direction of NAFTA or CAFTA supporting these in the belief their purpose is really free trade. But if they make the connection between such agreements and the European Common Market that helped pave the way for the very undemocratic European Union, I don't believe any libertarian would support them.

To summarize, comon, libertarianism and libertarian ideals can be found in a broad segment of the political spectrum. They cannot be placed in a box, nor can it be said that all outside the box is not libertarian.
PhreedomPhan
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 6:14:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 5:04:22 PM, Volkov wrote:
PhreedomPhan, a word of advice; cut down on the size of your posts. No one reads them otherwise.

Thanks for the advice, Volkov. To be honest, I believe we may be in the final chapter of human freedom. I think the light is about to go out although those living in the dark won't notice.

I don't have a lot of formal "education" but I've done a lot of reading and have a good deal of experience that tells me we are likely entering a dark age through which the light of truth may never again be seen. I want to reach as many people as I can in hope that a spark will keep burning. I will not be a one-line wonder and I'm not trying to reach people with the attention span of a gnat. They will be of no use keeping the light burning.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 7:52:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 4:58:46 PM, PhreedomPhan wrote:
know you are young and relatively inexperienced, but I'm certain you have the intelligence to recognize that such a mentality is more indicative of a "Grand Inquisitor" than of a libertarian.


You funny, I can also understand such a mentality is more indicative of a "Grand Inquisitor", hell I have written two papers on Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov and have had Dr.'s in political science teach me about it.
Your funny.
At age 25 I have done more than some 60 year olds. Maybe even yourself.

Like the physical spectrums, the political spectrum has no clear cut divisions. You can't say, "This point is liberalism, this conservatism, this libertarian. Each can appear in many shades within the somewhat vague borders of its "bandwidth."


I thought this was an understood fact?
But you give yourself to much credit.

I can see some libertarians who don't know or understand the background or the direction of NAFTA or CAFTA supporting these in the belief their purpose is really free trade. But if they make the connection between such agreements and the European Common Market that helped pave the way for the very undemocratic European Union, I don't believe any libertarian would support them.

I do not.

To summarize, comon, libertarianism and libertarian ideals can be found in a broad segment of the political spectrum. They cannot be placed in a box, nor can it be said that all outside the box is not libertarian.

That is why I claim the America failed as a form of "libertarian" beliefs that were followed.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 7:56:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 6:14:00 PM, PhreedomPhan wrote:
At 2/28/2010 5:04:22 PM, Volkov wrote:
PhreedomPhan, a word of advice; cut down on the size of your posts. No one reads them otherwise.

Thanks for the advice, Volkov. To be honest, I believe we may be in the final chapter of human freedom. I think the light is about to go out although those living in the dark won't notice.


Don't be so myopic.

I don't have a lot of formal "education" but I've done a lot of reading and have a good deal of experience that tells me we are likely entering a dark age through which the light of truth may never again be seen. I want to reach as many people as I can in hope that a spark will keep burning. I will not be a one-line wonder and I'm not trying to reach people with the attention span of a gnat. They will be of no use keeping the light burning.

Don't worry so much.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 9:01:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
For those who are in denial about America being a financial failure. You must admit it takes quite a bit of rationalization to believe such nonsense. Any person, family, club, city, county, state or country that acquires insurmountable debt to live in a phony economy is a financial failure. If any third-world country (regardless of their failures) borrowed as much as we did over the past 4 decades, it would surely appear to be thriving as well. But such appearances cannot be maintained.
PhreedomPhan
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 10:23:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
>You funny, I can also understand such a mentality is more indicative of a "Grand Inquisitor", hell I have written two papers on Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov and have had Dr.'s in political science teach me about it.<-comon

I was fortunate enough never to have been indoctrinated by Dr.'s in political science. What I've learned I've learned by readings of my own choice and in fighting the powers that be – locally, nationally, and internationally.

>Your funny.
At age 25 I have done more than some 60 year olds. Maybe even yourself.<-comon

I'll show you mine if you show me yours. Bet mine's bigger – list of things done that is. BTW, when I put my birthday down I'd just had a bad online experience and didn't want to give too much info. I'm actually almost 68.

>>Like the physical spectrums, the political spectrum has no clear cut divisions. You can't say, "This point is liberalism, this conservatism, this libertarian. Each can appear in many shades within the somewhat vague borders of its "bandwidth."<<-Phree

>I thought this was an understood fact?
But you give yourself to much credit.<-comon

Sorry! I thought you were sincere in seeking the thoughts of others and I wanted to give you some information and ideas I thought you might find helpful. I had no way of knowing that at 25 you knew and had done it all.

>>Thanks for the advice, Volkov. To be honest, I believe we may be in the final chapter of human freedom. I think the light is about to go out although those living in the dark won't notice.<<-Phree

>Don't be so myopic.<-comon

Don't be so blind.

>>I don't have a lot of formal "education" but I've done a lot of reading and have a good deal of experience that tells me we are likely entering a dark age through which the light of truth may never again be seen. I want to reach as many people as I can in hope that a spark will keep burning. I will not be a one-line wonder and I'm not trying to reach people with the attention span of a gnat. They will be of no use keeping the light burning.<<-Phree

>Don't worry so much. <-comon

Don't be so smug and complacent.