Which group is more loyal to the constitution?Posted by: Texas14
22 Total Votes
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.
@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.
It's like the Democratic-Republican party back then, they still supported Federalism even though they advocated more state rights.
@TheMysteryManMovement Are you sure about that IQ? Maybe the weed made you hallucinate it XD
@triangle, federalism supports states rights.
I never said they didn't. I was just countering basil's argument that Libertarians support a confederate style government.
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
Pfft. The libertarians don't realize that America is supposed to be a democracy.
@debate_power So how is libertarianism undemocratic?
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.
*Not referring to libertarianism as a whole
Who said that right-libertarianism means they have "absolute" control?
I hate how libertarianism is always exaggerated.
Right-libertarians support capitalism. Capitalism is a system in which industry is controlled privately. Private property means property that belongs absolutely to one individual.
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.
@tajshar2k Not all libertarians are necessarily minarchists, there's no saying that Libertarians always believe the government should never step in on anything.
@debate_power What's wrong with that?
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.
But thats the general idea of libertarianism isn't it? (correct me if I'm wrong)
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.
Libertarians want to abolish the FDA and environmental protection, which I strongly disagree with.
@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.
Really? Socialism defines ownership, not wages. And what do you define as working? Being competitive?
@debate_power Why do you think the USSR fell?
In a socialist economy, the wage gap between the rich and the poor is generally lower.
You know, it's not even important. The argument was that right- libertarianism is undemocratic. You seem to agree.
@triangle Give one example of a socialist country.
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.
@debate_power Democracy is a system where the power relies in the people. Libertarianism can't violate democracy if people can still vote.
You're right, but right-libertarianism can by counteracting the democratization of the economy.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Also, it spent too much money in Afghanistan.
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.
So who cares? The USSR wasn't socialist or democratic. I don't have to "defend" it.
@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.
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.
@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.
@triangle.128k Well, if you want to call rule "tyranny", then do so.
If rule is tyranny, then capitalism is tyranny.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
Well, if you ask me all forms of government or governance can be considered tyranny, including governance over property.
The USSR was basically a dictatorship with far left-wing ideals of socialism and communism.
@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 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.
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.
@debate_power Well they intended to impliment Marxist Communism at first but it just wouldn't work and it turned into a dictatorship.
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.
Socialism gets rid of competition, and society as a whole should really not be controlling the economy.
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?
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.