The guarantor and the grantor are two seperate things. I am the guarantor and guardian of my children's rights. However, I did not bestow those rights upon them. At the age of reason, they will become the guardian on their own.

Perhaps if our party accepted 5 billion in corporate contributions and 80 million in federal tax dollars, we would poll up there ande compete with the despots. Apples to oranges. You shouldn't go here because you lack the experience in politics to do so (not meant as a dis...just saying).

The former is the view of the founders (as evidenced by the constitutional convention debates, federalist / anti-federalist papers, a plathora of personal writings of the founders, the state ratification debates, multiple state resolutions (KY & VA are VERY specific). The latter is what they TEACH IN MODERN CIVICS CLASS and it is factually & historically incorrect. The former provides for a 'limited government' whereas the latter provides for a government without bounds.

The SCOTUS is not a sovereign body. The people are. Humans are fallible and do make mistakes. When Scotus allows other legal principles, such as 'international law,' come into the eqation regarding 'constitutonal law' they are incorrect. I believe it was Chan who mentions Marburry v Madison quite often. He is correct in that the SCOTUS acquired much power under the decision. However he, and many who share the view, are incorrect in their findings. That decision was over 'original jurisdiction' which congress cannot regulate (remove)....to which I agree. It has been misapplied over the years.

Are you suggesting that the Dred Scott Decision was a correct decision? Or how about Kelo v New London? By the way, it was an incorrect decision by the SCOTUS that gave us 'corporate personage' which is antithetical to liberty.

The constitution is actually quite broad in scope considering the purpose of the federal government. Where it fails to provide sufficient authority can be amended to do so. Many of such failings I am not opposed to in principle. However, to do so outside of the process remains illigitmate, and thus illegal and immoral.

Where our differences actually lie is what we consider 'proper' for the federal government to regulate. Whereas I wish to maintain power locally, you wish to remove to a far away place less effected by the constituents. It is easier to apply pressure and change law in Austin as opposed to DC. It is easier to unseat a state rep or senator than a federal equivilant. This is the essence of federalism. Local control over local affairs.

Absolutely correct. You cannot have a 'libertarian' society without resolute prosecution of fraud and abuse at every level. That is why libery and personal responsibility go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other.

However, it is not the libertarians that you find abusing liberty. A simple example is our DA who was just fined for violating the election code (as was one of our county commissioners lately). Both redirected campaign funds for personal use. These violations are considered 'civil' infractions as opposed to 'criminal.' We would like to change that obviously. Alas, the neoconservatives will circle the wagons and protect their own.

Some do.....the majority does not. You are misinformed and probably gleening your info from anarchist Rothbardian cultists (which controlled the LP since '80 intil '06).

Garbage. First, property exists with or without governmetn. Private property is much more than land. It includes the computer that you are bloggin with and the car that you drive. Private property is a matter of posession which obviously existed prior to government. There are even biblical examples prior to the establishment of the kingdom of Isreal.

Secondly, I do not 'detest' government. I detest their refusal to remain in the bounds of their constitutional authority. I detest the POTUS utilizing 'signing statements' to suggest he is above THE LAW. I detest Congress giving my money to wealthy nations when we have starving people here at home. I detest our government selling advanced weapons systems to China. I detest many things.......especially when government VIOLATES THE LAW.

Wow! What can I say.....Light and day between 1776 and 1999. Obviously Holmes and Sunstein are a product of state controlled education. I cannot express how much I disagree with that assertion. I can only thing of a few things that I am 'dependent' on the government to do.

National Defense
Contract enforcement
Civil dispute resolution
Law enforcement
Infrastructure development / maintanance.

Can you name any more?

It is not 'misdirection.' Volunteerism is part of 'personal responsibility' in my view. As I said previously, you cannot have liberty without personal responsibility. You cannot have a nice community without being involved. You cannot have a safe community without being a good neighbor. When was the last time you knocked on your neighbor's door?

You claimed through your screed that we were selfish and noncaring individuals. You are wrong. It is EXACTLY the point. Admit it, take your hit and move on.......

RE: social programs:

As I said, it must be done legitimately, through the process. That is why I envited you to be engaged in my next panel. I have 'no authority' as of yet. I should have said authority in September.

.

As governmental authority is 'delegated' from the people, to the state, to the fed.gov, then I find it absolutely necessary for the government to act in accordance to THE LAW. If the government is allowed to break the law, then it has no moral authority to enforce the law. You cannot bitch because they are listening to your phone conversations, reading your mail, denying some of habeas corpus, when it was people who share your view that enabled them to do so as a matter of 'convenience.'

Actually no. A 'lawless' market would be beyone laissez faire which I do not subscribe to. Profits and losses should both be privatized. When you talk in terms of 'pollution,' we talk in terms of class action tresspass which would be a criminal offense. 'The commons' (air, water, etc) should be highly regulated to insure that trasspass is not without strict enforcement and punitive measures inforced. This is actually too complex to go into here. It would require face time or a conversation in a verbal medium.


Again, you are misinformed. One need only look at HOAs to see 'neo-feudalism' in practice thanks to 'corporate personnage.'

'Coercion' is a form of aggression and fraud and as such is a violation of rights and property. It would be a criminal matter with the bad actor going to prison instead of the pot smoking, twinkie eating pizza delivery dude.

To my knowledge, there has never been a 'free market.' One thing I do believe, though much malligned by my colleagues, is that 'unbridled capitalism begets depsotism.'

You would know this had you read the LP of TX platform majority report that I posted some months back (which was adopted....say 98%). Without government intervention, monopolies cannot develop or exist. This is a historical fact. Monopolies are a product of the neo-feudal / fascist state which currently is being established here.

I don't know. It has never been practiced. Our 'free trade agreements' are hardly 'free.' They are constructs meant to establish monopolies. Even during the founding of our republic, protectionist and punitive tariffs, as opposed to simple revenue generating, were established. Tariffs, like sales taxes, are probably one of the least offensive methods of raising government revenue in my mind.

Really? So you believe that King George and his minions declaration of the suspension of habeas corpus is simply 'panicky?' Wow. How about searching homes without a warrant? This happens as well. I do not consider that 'panicky.' I consider it tyranny.

I agree that 'our' government has the best track record throughout history. However, our government has overtly gone off the track and off the reservation in recent years.

Give me an example please. There are some Rothbardians here.

This might simply be semantics on both our sides. We might not be 'communicating' due to a lack of understanding on both ends. However, the bolded text I disagree with. Otherwise, I can take my neighbors' groceries because they are only two, and we are four.

Everything revolves around the 'respect' of the individual. 'WE' are, as a collective, a number of individuals. 'We' have no more 'rights' than an individual has a right. I have no right to enter at will into my neighbors home without cause. Thus, the goverment cannot enter into an individual's home 'without cause.' See how that works?

The 'respect' for private property is actually an 'individual responsibility.' As I said previously, you cannot have one without the other. If you fail to act 'responsibly' you will lose your rights (felons?).

They are not, and need not be mutually exclusive.

It has nothing to do with being 'self-centered.' Your actions are out of my control and therefore I am not responsible. We have discussed self responsibility. What you are suggesting is rewarding those who lack this trait. I simply object to that. I will help those in need. I will not help those who refuse to attempt to help themselves.

Agreed. National security, contract enforcement, civil dispute resolution...can you name more?

How so? Other than 'equality under the law' this would be impossible. I'll setter for equality under the law which does not exist today thanks to corporate personnage.

Yes, I agree with this.

I agree with this as well. I often ask audiences that if the purpose of government is to protect our rights and property, exactly 'who' are they protecting us from? I contend it is against our neo-feudal / fascits overlords such as HOAs.

I don't think you understand feudalism.

It was only tried once and didn't last long due to the lack of sufficient safeguards in the Constitution. It could be corrected....but not without an amendment.

Then you are listening to the wrong 'wing' of the party.

Be advised that the 'sparring' is due to a simple concept.....ours is that the government 'must obey the law' while you disagree. If we are a nation of laws and not of 'men' then I would contend that the former is necessary.

That said....it has taken me over an hour to respond to this and it is pointless. If you wish to discuss this further 'with me,' then I'll PM you my phone number. I am much too busy to be online at this hour. I'll even forego the usual spell check due to my lack of spelling skills and the onset of dislexia due to age. Also, the wife is on the way.

__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat

You got that backwards... He bolded the grant part.


Many seem to think that they can only vote for the two crap parties. Another big problem we have here. We have a major party problem.


The SC not doing its job well does not excuse such illegalities.
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you say if the people wanted it the government should ignore to constitution? Or something along that line?


You really need to understand that we do not hate the government. Libertarians WANT A GOVERNMENT. We do not want a corrupt oppressive government though. We do not hate government, just bad government. That is correct we do not have any responsibility to society. Individuals have some responsibility to the government, taxes. Individuals have the responsibility to not violate other individuals rights. Voluntary interaction between individuals, a choice nothing more. The government is there to protect the rights of it citezens, not oppress them.



It very much is an important point. It goes back to force. We do not want anyone to be Forced to help others. If they choose to then wonderful. Choice. Many of us choose to help others in many ways, but we do not force other individuals to do the same. You are saying we lack empathy for others and that is not the case. We just want individuals to be able to make that choice for themselves. Also you can look at the FACT that we support liberties that have nothing to do with us personally. It is all about freedom for the individual.


I do not care to much about state and federal power. What I do care about is the government following the law. If the government wants a certain power it should be done correctly. If that requires a amendment so be it. They should never disobey the law.


No not a lawless market. Things like pollution should be regulated, as they infringe on other individuals rights. There is a hard line to draw in that subject. I do not know where you are getting feudalism. Either way it would not be lawless or completely unregulated.


Yes.



No not really. It continues to become increasingly corrupt and pushes it bound(power) farther and farther. I am sorry a want for a good government is NOT a bad thing. We want a good government.
If we all agreed that the government was doing a great job would we even be here?


No they are rights. Small violations are still violations. Not just big grand things.


That goes back to collectivism v individualism.
I am not ok with violating the minority so the majority can be happy.


His point was about favoritism and equality, not maximizing benifit for the best of the whole(majority).

Well since individualism is not selfish... Society is not what we are worried about. Individuals are more important that society. I have shown you many times that it is in fact not selfish.

If you can answer this point and prove me wrong. That is all that really needs to be said.

1. If libertarianism is selfish as you claim than why do we fight for rights that have nothing to do with ourselves personally. Which of course is inherently un-selfish as it is standing up for others with no benefit to ourselves and only benefit for the said others.

The fight for individual liberties for all individuals is the basic definition of libertarianism.

No it is not. If you go back he can choose to help another, but he is not forced to. He very well may choose to, as he has said he does with certain volunteering. But he would never force another to do so.
It is about the individuals choice.

I will say it again:
We want government.
We want government.
We want government.We want government.We want government.We want government.We want government.We want government.
We want Law.
We want Law.
We want Law.
Got it?

How do you know? It was never tried. I said this before. How long before democracy or so many other forms of things were tried? I think it most certainly would work. I could not agree any value that decided to strip away individual's liberties. It is selfish.

As has been said it is about allowing others to CHOOSE if they want to help or not. Most of our personal moral would volunteer to help others in most situations. I would bet every libertarian on this board helps others, but they choose to.

Now now I have been responding this whole time I think. I do not think I am "nasty" looking back I do not see bone being nasty either.

And now my laptop is dead.... Stop making me type so much...

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

Indeed, they are. The whole thing hinges of whether or not you believe in inherent natural rights. Obviously, I do not. Not a lot of middle ground, there.

No diss. I just give my Joe Sixpack opinion on how I see things. Might be useful to understand that opinion, too, considering I am who you're selling libertarianism to.

Which of the two is the reality of how our government has and does work? Government certainly has bounds. Libertarians paint this extreme, horrific vision monster that doesn't have a whole lot of basis. (Well, W has come closer than it comfortable, true....)

In terms of some conspiracy theory, historical incorrectness and whatnot in civics....ehhh. Education has been so thoroughly pummelled by the PC movement and other lobbying that it has become so bland and uninteresting...hell, who knows what the "truth" is anymore? Civics class for me was one semester long wank to the Founders. I learned more about government from Schoolhouse Rock than high school.

"Incorrect"? I do believe that is not up to you and I to determine. I understand your opinion, and that you apparently disagree with every single decision since Marbury, but it is what it is. We disagree on technicality vs. practicality.

Yeah, I dislike corporate personage, as well. Odd concept.

No, my point is that good laws and governance has an inherent flexibility, which I favor. I certainly prefer the laws to be in basic conformance with the zeitgeist...tends to keep revolution at bay. A law that works well in 1833 may not be all that relevant or useful in 2008. By and large, the system has the means to self-correct, one of it's best features.

So, that gets us back to whether it makes sense to pare everything back to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. To me, we'd lose far more than we'd gain. It's just not worth it.

I'm more familiar with Kelo (or at least I had to study it more recently), and yeah, it's an interesting case.

And, we're back to that. I prefer to move forward than backward, so if this is such a sticking point, you should take it up with the courts. If it would make you feel better, maybe the government should simply make a blanket Amendment, giving itself the authority to enact everything that's not specifically addressed in the Constitution and be done with it.

I think it's a huge waste of time, and skirts the real issue that libertarians are using that as a shield to mask the fact that they just plain old don't like the gummint. Paring everything back, I think people wouldbe quite taken a back at how primitive and harsh life would likely be.

Correct. I am very much a nationalist. My emphasis is on making more things consistent and equal, rather than having 50 little fiefdoms all warring with each other, as ardent states' righters seem to want. My inclination is that cooperation gets one farther.

Local power is wonderful, absolutely. For a great many things it is the best way to fly. Not for EVERYTHING, however, which is one of my biggest criticisms of libertarianism: it's so dogmatically all-or-nothing. So extreme.

Whew. Well, we agree on something, at least, eh?

Yes, I am sure that every libertarian is a paragon of virtue. Trouble is, not everyone can be counted on to be as self-regulatory and morally upstanding as libertarians. To translate that implicit trust into policy - meaning dismantling watchdog agencies that exist to safeguard the public good - is a step I just won't accept.

History is replete with examples of unrestrained violence and greed in the absense of restraint. Without restraints, and assurances, there can be no freedom or liberty to begin with. Governments exist to ensure society will actually work.

Then best get to culling the extreme Rothbardian elements from the fold, then, because quasi-anarchy appears to be the central theme of libertarianism.

Without the recognition of ownership of that property by government, it's reduced to violent squatterdom. Only the legal enforcement of the recognition prevents me from walking all over your property without your leave. Without that overarching structure of mutual understanding, anything I have grab onto is mine. Property is a creature of society.

"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." Thomas Paine

I take the above quote to mean that there are reciprocal duties owed to society in exchange for all these rights, which is something libertarianism wishes to ignore.

As do I. I hate everything you've mentioned, there. And, absolutely, I agree that there's a lot of things that go way beyond what the limits are. BUT, that's a pretty far cry from condemning EVERYTHING governmental to the scrap pile. If a part goes out on my car, I don't junk the whole car.

You looking for massive list-fest? There's tons of things that the evil ole government does that enhances our quality of life. What I seemost in arguments is that people only acknowledge what they think is relevant to them, and dismiss the multiudes of things government does for us that go under the radar.

Look, I agree that there's lots of goofy stuff the government shouldn't be into. I certainly agree that there's lots of inefficiency and waste. Our government sure could use some slimming and refocusing. But that's a long way from nuking it down to something so primitive that it's entirely ineffective. Romantic notions about how everything would be awesome if we turnedback the clock to 1781 is simply unfeasible and not really worth even discussing.

Light and day between 1789 and 1999, indeed. Modern life is FAR more complex.

Yesterday, because he has a drumset and it helps when I practice bass....

But, no, I get your point. And part of that personal responsibility is contribution, voluntary or otherwise, to your society. Are we to rely on volunteerism for payment of taxes? Think about what that would mean, policy-wise. No, volunteerism is nice, but society just cant really be run on it. Far too much freeloading.

What "hit"? I stand by the assertion. Libertarians think in terms of everyone out to get ME, to take MY stuff, to impose on MY liberties....rarely do I hear talk about public good, social safety nets, or curbing one's liberty in the name of the greater whole. What about the whole libertarian mindset is NOT concerned, first and foremost with the individual, the self, to the minimization of others?

Occasional volunteerism aside, libertarians sure don't strike me as particularly altruistic, or willing to subsume their personal desires in deference to others whom they feel are lesser than they.

Libertarians are the first ones to squeal about social programs that don't benefit them directly.

And, I appreciate that. My most tangible contribution may be to serve as a counterpoint. I have some ideas that I'd love to toss out to be kicked around, but, ultimately, you'll have to judge the worth of my input.

No, certainly they should act in accordance with the law. I am just wary of adherence to law that may no longer be relevant or even detrimental, and I am probably more open to changing laws than most. I don't really think we are all that far apart on this.

Agreed. I think that the extremes of both need to be curtailed. So, to me, it's okay if we devise a system where maybe people won't be quite as rich as they would be in the absence of X regulation, but neither will people starve in the streets. Extremism is best avoided in any functional, civil society.

Oh, ye gods, don't get me started on HOAs.....petty freakin tyrants.

I gotta run.....I'll mull over and address the remainder later. Good stuff.

__________________
The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all. -- G. K. Chesterton

You don't have to abide by it. You do not have to think it is good, but it would be nice if you understood it. I really do not think you do.


Why not?
Men are not infallible either is the SC.


I do not want to return government to 1833. I want good non-oppressive laws. The going back in the past does not apply. We do not have to lose anything, just go and do things LEGALLY.


Fine so be it. As long as they follow the law instead of ignoring it.




Whether they all are or not is not the point. If they are immoral and harm others than they would be arrested and treated properly. But most of the time if they when they are not harming others there is no problem.


Libertarianism is not anarchy. Far from it as we support government and law.




Then there is not problem because we do not condemn everything governmental to the scrap pile.



I can not say every little function that the government should do in a list. That is too broad. I will take things topic by topic.



I don't think he meant taxes...


You really do not understand libertarianism. You think it is something it is not. I refer to my last post and how I prove it is not self-centered. No it is not about the public good, it is about the individuals good. The does not make it self-centered.
You seem to be hung up on this mis-conception.



Changing the law is fine, just don't break it.




Listen you really just do not understand the concepts of libertarianism. I am not trying to be offensive. You are stuck on whatever initial ideas you had of it. They just are not right.

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

Probably not. However, 'unalianable' rights insures 'equality' while any other method does not.

I understand the opinion. I just happen to disagree with said opinion.

It began with the former (limited) and morphed into the latter (uncontrolled).

I disagree at this point. I cannot think of many issues where government has been prevented from expanding lately. I am simply waiting for them to start tatooing newborns with UPC symbols.

Ya think? W is a criminal. He has committed sedition with his 'signing statements.' He should be prosecuted for that offense.

There are many 'extreme' libertarians just as there are extreme Republicans and Democrats. Tell me, do you agree with Lyndon LaRouche's POVs? He is a Democrat. Do you think it fair to paint all Democrats with the same brush given that this whack-job is one of their own?

That is why the 'study' of history, including the constitution, is so important. There is so much in history that is not taught. Sam Houston, the 'hero' of San Jacinto, is lionized here. They do not teach that his men mutinied, nor that he would fall off his horse due to drinking so much whiskey (as a result of that mutiny) on his way to defeat Santa Ana. Had his men obeyed his order to march to Nacagdoches, there would have never been a San Jacinto and the United States would have invaded and went to war with Mexico much earlier.

Schoolhouse Rock was a great program. One semester of civics is not enough in my opinion.

Yes it is. WE are the sovereigns of this nation. Not the government!

I think you are talking about Chan. I did not make such a statement.

I see nothing 'impractical' about setting the boundries for government and forcing elected leaders to stay within those bounds.

Yeah, but it was a SCOTUS clerk that gave us this canard. Ironically based on 'equality' it has lead to the trampling of rights of individuals by the corporate elite.

I too believe they should be flexible to a degree. However, if there are limits, and limits are breached, corrective action should be taken. I too would agree that the system has the means to self-correct. However, that mechanism is never used anymore. As a result, we have a lawless government.

I think not. We would simply have to return some functions back to the states (most of which are criminal matters anyway), privatize some (at least allowing competition), but not all that many, and those items we could not we would push for an amendment to grant proper authority.

Eminent Domain abuse is rampant. It almost always boils down to corporations taking advantage of the individuals. I have been fighting this for years.

Obedience to the law is not regression. It is the moral thing to do. I hate to tell you but there is a little thing called 'sovereign immunity' which is always utilized to prevent such things in the court. Lawsuits have been filed. 'Permission' to carry forward has never been granted.

I would campaign against such an amendment. I do not desire an omnipotent state.

Again, to reiterate, it isn't that we dislike the government. It is that we dislike illegal activities carried out by the government. There is a difference yet you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Oh please spare me the dramatics here. Having a government that actually obeyed the law would not be primitave and wuold change nothing except remove the rampant fraud from the system.

First of all, they are not feifdoms. They are republics where the individual citizens decide how much government intrusion they allow.

Different regions require different needs regarding governmental intrusion. Whereas in California, the utilization of certain building codes for earthquakes is rational, those same building codes would not be logical in Texas or Oklahoma. Likewise, where new homes built here require 'hurricain straps,' the utilization of these would be inane in Arkansas. Different regions have different needs.

No one is suggesting that EVERYTHING should be local. However, at the same time EVERYTHING should not be federal. A balance can be achieved using logic and reason and THIS should be the ONLY determining factor.

We are not as far off as you may think.

Perhaps not. Yet name something where 'the heavy hand of government' MUST be used outside the realm of its purpose. Give an example please.

Give me an example please.

Do you actually believe that 'laws' prevent violence? If that were the case then there would be no 6 o'clock news. 'The Law,' as it is force, is utilized to punish. Those who violate 'the law' would not appear to be restrained at all. We should not utilize 'the law' as a matter of prevent