Which group is more loyal to the constitution?

Posted by: Texas14

22 Total Votes


12 votes


6 votes
1 comment


4 votes
1 comment
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
basils says2015-06-10T00:17:08.0887688-05:00
None of them. Conservatives are too concerned with Terror than basic liberties, Liberitarians are more of an Articles of confederation group, as the Constitution was giving more power to the central government. Democracts are moderates and understand it is ok to change rules made 200+ years ago.
triangle.128k says2015-06-10T03:16:04.1923015-05:00
@basils Just because Libertarians support more state rights doesn't mean they support a confederation. A confederation would never work, libertarians still do believe in federalism.
triangle.128k says2015-06-10T03:16:50.8527988-05:00
It's like the Democratic-Republican party back then, they still supported Federalism even though they advocated more state rights.
TheMysteryManMovement says2015-06-10T03:19:21.9124753-05:00
Liberals are the devil man.
MechVarg says2015-06-10T10:35:25.1921207-05:00
@TheMysteryManMovement Are you sure about that IQ? Maybe the weed made you hallucinate it XD
Texas14 says2015-06-10T14:38:20.6870081-05:00
@triangle, federalism supports states rights.
triangle.128k says2015-06-13T23:06:49.9151824-05:00
I never said they didn't. I was just countering basil's argument that Libertarians support a confederate style government.
Wylted says2015-06-13T23:15:18.9943775-05:00
Democrats hate America the most and will spit on it's founders and freedom the most. Republicans pee on the constitution slightly less than them and the only part that really reapects America's founding and love their country enough to stick to the constitution and the philosophy of negative rights the founders have is Libertarians
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:14:19.6829936-05:00
Pfft. The libertarians don't realize that America is supposed to be a democracy.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:15:10.4718642-05:00
@debate_power So how is libertarianism undemocratic?
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:16:30.7798145-05:00
I'm referring to libertarianism as a whole, just right-libertarianism. Anyways, since you asked, the idea of one person having absolute control over a piece of property in a society is necessarily undemocratic.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:16:48.0254248-05:00
*Not referring to libertarianism as a whole
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:19:04.6704172-05:00
Who said that right-libertarianism means they have "absolute" control?
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:19:35.5897735-05:00
I hate how libertarianism is always exaggerated.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:19:51.5785546-05:00
I mean, not always but quite often.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:20:48.6557889-05:00
Right-libertarians support capitalism. Capitalism is a system in which industry is controlled privately. Private property means property that belongs absolutely to one individual.
tajshar2k says2015-06-14T18:21:00.5689021-05:00
I think libertarians have good intentions, but think absolute freedom is a good thing. Sometimes, the government needs to step in and deal with stuff.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:22:15.0983674-05:00
@tajshar2k Not all libertarians are necessarily minarchists, there's no saying that Libertarians always believe the government should never step in on anything.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:22:35.8911682-05:00
@debate_power What's wrong with that?
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:23:25.9937317-05:00
I never said anything was wrong with it. I said it was necessarily undemocratic. Although I do certainly believe there is plently wrong with it.
tajshar2k says2015-06-14T18:23:35.3061406-05:00
But thats the general idea of libertarianism isn't it? (correct me if I'm wrong)
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:23:58.5486703-05:00
Your idea of socialism can't work, socialism eradicates competition. There's minimal difference between salaries so many people aren't really going to work hard if they won't get more money in return.
tajshar2k says2015-06-14T18:24:21.8213941-05:00
Libertarians want to abolish the FDA and environmental protection, which I strongly disagree with.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:24:42.2242699-05:00
@tajshar2k Not exactly, libertarianism just means to minimize government control. Libertarianism is a very broad term and covers a wide range of the political spectrum.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:25:23.6071105-05:00
Really? Socialism defines ownership, not wages. And what do you define as working? Being competitive?
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:25:38.6134243-05:00
@debate_power Why do you think the USSR fell?
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:26:13.5362998-05:00
In a socialist economy, the wage gap between the rich and the poor is generally lower.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:26:25.9073377-05:00
You know, it's not even important. The argument was that right- libertarianism is undemocratic. You seem to agree.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:27:04.9236880-05:00
@triangle Give one example of a socialist country.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:27:06.1301333-05:00
And I define working as like working to improve the economy and all. Like a doctor works to improve the health of the population, farmers work to feed the population, etc.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:27:47.8869142-05:00
@debate_power Democracy is a system where the power relies in the people. Libertarianism can't violate democracy if people can still vote.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:29:01.0991221-05:00
You're right, but right-libertarianism can by counteracting the democratization of the economy.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:29:57.8062126-05:00
The USSR fell because it was controlled by one party which helped itself at the expense of the population. That's not consistent with socialism at all.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:30:04.2491365-05:00
If by democracy, you mean that people should control and vote on the economy and all in general, that was tried in ancient Greece like in Athens. It was a major fail and was simply "tyranny of the majority."
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:30:59.5650189-05:00
The USSR had trouble maximizing economic growth because a large economy is just not possible under socialism/communism like what the USSR was trying. Heck, the USSR wasn't even fully communist like Karl Marx's original idea.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:31:19.3946189-05:00
Whether it worked in your mind or not was unimportant. And the majority of the people living in Athens could not vote. Unsurprising that it didn't work.
tajshar2k says2015-06-14T18:31:33.4668189-05:00
Also, it spent too much money in Afghanistan.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:31:46.5874189-05:00
China used to be more socialist but it's becoming richer and all because it's becoming more and more capitalist. Heck, the "Communist party of China" is just a name at this point.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:32:01.5633925-05:00
So who cares? The USSR wasn't socialist or democratic. I don't have to "defend" it.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:32:39.9401305-05:00
I also don't have to defend China.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:32:45.3586189-05:00
@debate_power Well still, the majority of the people voting would still lead to tyranny of the majority. Most countries nowadays that are called a democracy are actually a mix between a democracy and a republic.
tajshar2k says2015-06-14T18:33:28.3094189-05:00
Socialism in theory, may work. But to be practical, it cannot exist. A balance of both capitalism and socialism much be implemented in order to run a country successfully.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:34:42.3082189-05:00
@debate_power Well China's socialism dragged it behind. Look how much China's economy is growing and look how richer China now that it's more capitalist leaning.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:34:56.2087510-05:00
@triangle.128k Well, if you want to call rule "tyranny", then do so.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:35:20.4672175-05:00
If rule is tyranny, then capitalism is tyranny.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:36:50.8174905-05:00
@triangle China never had any socialism. It was controlled by one party, rather than the community as a whole. One party or a dictator controlling all property is more like capitalism than socialism.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:38:31.5708925-05:00
You can argue it any way you like. You argue that's it more capitalist now, and better as a result. I'd argue that it's more socialist now, and better as a result.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:41:57.6508555-05:00
@debate_power It's tyranny, any idiot can make decesions on the government and economy. If we have certain leaders controlling most things, that would be better because those leaders are more educated about economics, politics and stuff.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:42:51.9282523-05:00
Mao tried to implement Communism and Socialist economic ideals into China. But see, every time socialist ideals are implimented, it quickly turns into a dictatorship.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:43:24.5362809-05:00
Well, if you ask me all forms of government or governance can be considered tyranny, including governance over property.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:44:19.7071873-05:00
The USSR was basically a dictatorship with far left-wing ideals of socialism and communism.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:45:14.8074469-05:00
@debate_power Well call whatever you want tyranny, but it's better to have a few leaders educated about politics and economics control most of the country over the less educated majority.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T18:45:23.6060161-05:00
Anyways, I have to leave now.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:46:40.6367237-05:00
@triangle Hahahahaha. So socialism invariably fails because some movements have tried to instate it in the past, eh? Well, you're just arguing against the ability to instate socialism rather than socialism itself. I don't have to defend socialism here either. Hardly surprising that those dictatorships you mentioned would come about, seeing as one of the key tenets of the socialist-communist ideology known as Marxism-Leninism is the creation of a dictatorship of a vanguard party. No surprise there.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:47:15.2570116-05:00
Okay. See ya.
debate_power says2015-06-14T18:48:28.6255741-05:00
Yeah, it had ideals of socialism and communism, but strangely never implemented either of those systems. Or perhaps not so strangely? Everyone in those days wanted power, like the former property owners who made it into the Communist Party as apparatchiks.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T19:08:19.7552800-05:00
I'm back, I just had to eat dinner.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T19:08:59.3826599-05:00
@debate_power Well they intended to impliment Marxist Communism at first but it just wouldn't work and it turned into a dictatorship.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T19:10:28.6761592-05:00
And even so, the ideology of socialism just isn't efficient by itself. Most "socialist" countries like some Nordic countries are Capitalist with more socialist economics implimented than most other countries.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T19:11:19.1762453-05:00
Socialism gets rid of competition, and society as a whole should really not be controlling the economy.
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T19:12:22.9722815-05:00
That's basically a more pure form of Democracy. Nearly all of society would seriously need to be very well educated in economics and such, which would be pretty hard. Why not just leave corporations and the government to control the economy instead of all of society as a whole?
triangle.128k says2015-06-14T19:13:41.9482759-05:00
It would advocate for more self-reliance and competition, competition can be a good thing. With competition, people will work harder and harder and push the limits to beat the competitor. Without competition like in Socialism, people may not work as hard.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.