Libertarianism

[Auctoritas 2,828]

I do want to follow the constitution and don't believe in interpretation like so many liberals believe.

Everything else is definitely your opinion, and I have no problems with any of it.

However, this part of your quote is actually a really big misunderstanding about how Common Law as a system works, which is by building jurisprudence based on previous jurisprudence. The US constitution is the baseline we started from, but that doesn't mean that it is the end result. And this is coming from a staunch bill-of-rights advocate. (hell, i'm a filthy liberal, and I'll defend the 2nd amendment as ardently as I do any of the others.)

This is exactly the same thing I brought up in the the thread about consensus in science. The entire purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret things based on the constitution and the decisions made regarding it. If we couldn't build on past cases, then we literally would have to start from the beginning every single time, and there's a strong chance that there would be a lot of variation in the decisions. The end result ends up being capricious and arbitrary because every new decision is based on a review that stands separate from all the others.

The other option as a system of law is Civil Law, which is when the entire code is set forth in writing. There is no leeway in it whatsoever. The problem is, because the system is designed to answer all questions at once with no interpretation, the laws are necessarily detailed and restrictive. It's actually a system that results in MORE government involvement and regulation, not less.

You're not a filthy liberal. Just a libertarian whose afraid to disappoint someone close to you by calling yourself a liberal. LOL!!!!

What happens when judicial law is reset or misinterpreted? Do we continue to accept a flawed, previous decision moving forward? Just a question for the sake of curiosity.

I actually had this topic come up yesterday in a group discussing first amendment law. The answer to that is: Eventually things change, it just takes time. Think Dred Scott and Brown v Board of Ed. Actually, there was a jurisprudence-made SCOTUS ruling that got changed just yesterday in a new ruling. About 15 years ago, there was a case that went to SCOTUS that dealt with the durability of consent (or denial of) in the case of law enforcement gaining access to a residence. That ruling held that if ANY resident or occupant of an abode does not give consent, that denial trumped consent given by anyone else, and that it was durable if that resident were to leave. Yesterday, in a 6-3 split, the court ruled in a case that if the person that denies consent leaves (or, in this case, was arrested for suspicion of domestic abuse), the police can re-request consent from a resident that said yes before, and if it is given then that consent is durable. In this case, the girlfriend gave consent, and the police came back several hours later. The court held it did not violate 4th Amendment search and seizure rules. The decision was written by Alito, with Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Breyer concurring. Kagin, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor dissented.

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/25/282589114/high-court-opens-door-to-easier-police-searches (I would listen to the story, because I have a serious old-person crush on Nina Totenburg.)

Anyway, that is just an example that just because something was ruled once doesn't mean that it is unchangeable or set in stone. Sometimes things change, sometimes new definitions or things that could not have been considered or known about 50 years ago come up and it forces the system to adapt to take in the new realities, technologies, or cultures.

I reiterate this time and again when people complain about the inefficiencies of government. Our government, as it was designed by James Madison, is set up to be DELIBERATELY INEFFICIENT. The last thing that any country needs is the ability to quickly change things, because if it's easy to do so some really jacked up stuff gets through. It's sort of like the QWERTY principle as applied to practical politics - if you can deliberately make things more difficult to do, it makes the process slow down enough that the keys don't stick (so to speak).

In the case of Common Law, it's the same way. People don't realize how nuanced a lot of the stuff that gets to the Supreme Court really gets, and how little impact most of the rulings have. They're nuanced, and therefore they are narrow. There's a reason why an average American can only name 1 or 2 SCOTUS cases of note - it's because the ones that really make huge waves don't happen all that often. Change, in general, is very slow and measured, but it's that way by design, because the opposite leads to capriciousness.

In the end, it all comes down to the idea of, as you said, a "flawed, previous decision". According to the Constitution, there's no such thing as a flawed decision, because the final arbiter on that is the Supreme Court. I understand disagreeing with some decisions (and believe me, I've had several that made me sick to my stomach - Citizens United, for instance), but the jurisprudence is the law of the land.

NOW(and sorry for basic civics lessons, I know you know but I never assume a different reader does), if the ruling is really really REALLY bad, there is a check and balance on it. If it is a rule that is not just one you disagree with, but one that is almost universally disliked, Congress (or, as has been bandied about recently, a conference of the state legislatures) can try to amend the US constitution to completely nullify a ruling. SCOTUS is not all powerful - they make decisions based on jurisprudence, but the base of it all is the Constitution. It's like a Jenga tower, if you remove the bottom blocks (in this case, by altering the Constitution), the whole tower of jurisprudence falls. It's not something that is undertaken lightly or easily - that's why there's only 27 amendments after 240 years or so. A perfect example, however, of this happening is the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments regarding due process extensions to all people. Also (And I know this one sticks in Libertarians' craw), the 16th Amendment was passed DIRECTLY because SCOTUS struck down a law congress had made regarding income tax.

So, to answer your question, change happens, happens slowly, happens slowly deliberately, and (in theory) since we elect the legislatures, we can force the change.

[AUTUmike 79]

Give it 20 years, and I think it will be a viable 3rd party if one of the big two doesn't swallow it first. My age cohort is (in general) more pro-choice and much much more accepting of same-sex relationships, which dovetails nicely into the Libertarian "Keep the government out of my life" idea. I don't know if it's just my cohort, but I also see a lot of people my age (we'll say mid 20s to mid 30s) are really backing away quickly from the populist bent we were on when President Obama was elected the first time. After 5 years of the same old stuff, they're quickly becoming either apathetic or openly hostile.

I think we should come up with a name for what happened. I like the "Grand Disillusionment."

Sounds like I'm around the same age as you and I agree with your assessment that many of our generation have a framework that would allow for Libertarianism to profit. However, I would be shocked if the Libertarian Party actually competed with Dems and Republicans. As I think I mentioned before, the fact that libertarianism draws support from the outer ranges of both liberalism and conservatism make the electoral math pretty difficult IMO.

I also think that while many people support the idea of less government intrusion into our lives, the way it is packaged as an absolute aversion to that scares some people off. So IMO for libertarians to draw support necessary to compete in elections they will have to relax some of their viewpoints (just like Repubs and Dems do each [non-primary] election). However, because of their ideological angle I think that a relaxation of libertarianism would simply mean less differentiation between them and the traditional parties--quite an interesting dynamic.

It is. That's why we are often labeled as radicals. In fact, we actually hold to the values of the constitution despite its so called "faults". I tend to be between Rand Paul and Dennis K. I think government has taken a huge step backwards and part of the reason is crony capitalism.

Wow, Kucinich and Rand Paul--that's descriptive, I like it

But to be fair, I think the reason libertarians are often labeled as radicals is because of the party's platform which includes things like the repeal of the IRS and the Federal Reserve--of which I can't fathom the rationale.

[autigeremt 6,776]

Give it 20 years, and I think it will be a viable 3rd party if one of the big two doesn't swallow it first. My age cohort is (in general) more pro-choice and much much more accepting of same-sex relationships, which dovetails nicely into the Libertarian "Keep the government out of my life" idea. I don't know if it's just my cohort, but I also see a lot of people my age (we'll say mid 20s to mid 30s) are really backing away quickly from the populist bent we were on when President Obama was elected the first time. After 5 years of the same old stuff, they're quickly becoming either apathetic or openly hostile.

I think we should come up with a name for what happened. I like the "Grand Disillusionment."

Sounds like I'm around the same age as you and I agree with your assessment that many of our generation have a framework that would allow for Libertarianism to profit. However, I would be shocked if the Libertarian Party actually competed with Dems and Republicans. As I think I mentioned before, the fact that libertarianism draws support from the outer ranges of both liberalism and conservatism make the electoral math pretty difficult IMO.

I also think that while many people support the idea of less government intrusion into our lives, the way it is packaged as an absolute aversion to that scares some people off. So IMO for libertarians to draw support necessary to compete in elections they will have to relax some of their viewpoints (just like Repubs and Dems do each [non-primary] election). However, because of their ideological angle I think that a relaxation of libertarianism would simply mean less differentiation between them and the traditional parties--quite an interesting dynamic.

It is. That's why we are often labeled as radicals. In fact, we actually hold to the values of the constitution despite its so called "faults". I tend to be between Rand Paul and Dennis K. I think government has taken a huge step backwards and part of the reason is crony capitalism.

Wow, Kucinich and Rand Paul--that's descriptive, I like it :)/>

But to be fair, I think the reason libertarians are often labeled as radicals is because of the party's platform which includes things like the repeal of the IRS and the Federal Reserve--of which I can't fathom the rationale.

You can't fathom it because we've had those two monsters in place for so long you feel it would destabilize our economy if we went away from them. Remember, both entities would have been considered a tool for centralized power in the days of our founding. Why can't we get a full on audit of the Fed? How is it that the IRS has the power to wield against specific groups or individuals? Because they are too powerful. Imagine how much money we waste through the "handling" of our tax dollars? Imagine the simplicity of having 10% of your income sent to the US General Fund, and 8% to the states general fund and that's it? Of course that's considered dangerous. Lol

[Auctoritas 2,828]

For the record, the establishment of a central bank has been something that's been debated literally since before the country was even founded. The whole thing, at the very inception, is a strikingly fun thing to read about.

[autigeremt 6,776]

For the record, the establishment of a central bank has been something that's been debated literally since before the country was even founded. The whole thing, at the very inception, is a strikingly fun thing to read about.

I think it would be ok if it weren't a ghost. It's there, we all know it's there, but not one sliver of transparency.

[AUinWV 0]

Give it 20 years, and I think it will be a viable 3rd party if one of the big two doesn't swallow it first. My age cohort is (in general) more pro-choice and much much more accepting of same-sex relationships, which dovetails nicely into the Libertarian "Keep the government out of my life" idea. I don't know if it's just my cohort, but I also see a lot of people my age (we'll say mid 20s to mid 30s) are really backing away quickly from the populist bent we were on when President Obama was elected the first time. After 5 years of the same old stuff, they're quickly becoming either apathetic or openly hostile.

I think we should come up with a name for what happened. I like the "Grand Disillusionment."

I hope you're right (and with less time, as I consider myself Libertarian), but when you consider the amount of people on the left and right that believe everything their particular news channels show (and ignore what they don't), and consider the same people that have bought off the republicrats own all those channels, I don't see us allowing a 3rd party to compete. Look at Ron Paul. As soon as he was a force, he was deemed a nut by both parties (and their channels) and the vast majority of Americans said he had no chance. Therefore, he didn't. We have two options. Stop the control of the media by those who own the media, or educate the MAJORITY of the populace to the truth of the matter. I don't see it happening. Too much concern in the first case, too much ignorant apathy in the second. I don't know what the answer is.

[AUinWV 0]

A bit off topic, but a fascinating interview. Former CIA operative on the state of the agency...

Also remember Mike Spann, first casualty of the war on terror, Auburn man, one of my greatest heroes.

[AUTUmike 79]

Give it 20 years, and I think it will be a viable 3rd party if one of the big two doesn't swallow it first. My age cohort is (in general) more pro-choice and much much more accepting of same-sex relationships, which dovetails nicely into the Libertarian "Keep the government out of my life" idea. I don't know if it's just my cohort, but I also see a lot of people my age (we'll say mid 20s to mid 30s) are really backing away quickly from the populist bent we were on when President Obama was elected the first time. After 5 years of the same old stuff, they're quickly becoming either apathetic or openly hostile.

I think we should come up with a name for what happened. I like the "Grand Disillusionment."

Sounds like I'm around the same age as you and I agree with your assessment that many of our generation have a framework that would allow for Libertarianism to profit. However, I would be shocked if the Libertarian Party actually competed with Dems and Republicans. As I think I mentioned before, the fact that libertarianism draws support from the outer ranges of both liberalism and conservatism make the electoral math pretty difficult IMO.

I also think that while many people support the idea of less government intrusion into our lives, the way it is packaged as an absolute aversion to that scares some people off. So IMO for libertarians to draw support necessary to compete in elections they will have to relax some of their viewpoints (just like Repubs and Dems do each [non-primary] election). However, because of their ideological angle I think that a relaxation of libertarianism would simply mean less differentiation between them and the traditional parties--quite an interesting dynamic.

It is. That's why we are often labeled as radicals. In fact, we actually hold to the values of the constitution despite its so called "faults". I tend to be between Rand Paul and Dennis K. I think government has taken a huge step backwards and part of the reason is crony capitalism.

Wow, Kucinich and Rand Paul--that's descriptive, I like it :)/>

But to be fair, I think the reason libertarians are often labeled as radicals is because of the party's platform which includes things like the repeal of the IRS and the Federal Reserve--of which I can't fathom the rationale.

You can't fathom it because we've had those two monsters in place for so long you feel it would destabilize our economy if we went away from them. Remember, both entities would have been considered a tool for centralized power in the days of our founding. Why can't we get a full on audit of the Fed? How is it that the IRS has the power to wield against specific groups or individuals? Because they are too powerful. Imagine how much money we waste through the "handling" of our tax dollars? Imagine the simplicity of having 10% of your income sent to the US General Fund, and 8% to the states general fund and that's it? Of course that's considered dangerous. Lol

No, I can't fathom the rationale behind abolishing the Fed because the benefits of having a central bank FAR outweigh the benefits of not having a central bank. And we know this because the history of the international political economy has proved it over and over again. Also, the flat tax rate you propose would be highly regressive and would increase the poverty rate, the poverty gap, and income inequality--all of which hamper economic growth.

[autigeremt 6,776]

Audit the Fed and let's see how responsible they have been. I'd like to see some accountability for a change. As for a fair or flat tax....I look at it from a fairness standpoint. Progressives talk about equality all the time until it deals with taxes. Then it's off the table. If you and I have to pay, everyone should have to pay. Right now the system is very unfair and slanted to one side. It's time to spread the responsibility.....equally.

[icanthearyou 4,464]

Give it 20 years, and I think it will be a viable 3rd party if one of the big two doesn't swallow it first. My age cohort is (in general) more pro-choice and much much more accepting of same-sex relationships, which dovetails nicely into the Libertarian "Keep the government out of my life" idea. I don't know if it's just my cohort, but I also see a lot of people my age (we'll say mid 20s to mid 30s) are really backing away quickly from the populist bent we were on when President Obama was elected the first time. After 5 years of the same old stuff, they're quickly becoming either apathetic or openly hostile.

I think we should come up with a name for what happened. I like the "Grand Disillusionment."

Sounds like I'm around the same age as you and I agree with your assessment that many of our generation have a framework that would allow for Libertarianism to profit. However, I would be shocked if the Libertarian Party actually competed with Dems and Republicans. As I think I mentioned before, the fact that libertarianism draws support from the outer ranges of both liberalism and conservatism make the electoral math pretty difficult IMO.

I also think that while many people support the idea of less government intrusion into our lives, the way it is packaged as an absolute aversion to that scares some people off. So IMO for libertarians to draw support necessary to compete in elections they will have to relax some of their viewpoints (just like Repubs and Dems do each [non-primary] election). However, because of their ideological angle I think that a relaxation of libertarianism would simply mean less differentiation between them and the traditional parties--quite an interesting dynamic.

It is. That's why we are often labeled as radicals. In fact, we actually hold to the values of the constitution despite its so called "faults". I tend to be between Rand Paul and Dennis K. I think government has taken a huge step backwards and part of the reason is crony capitalism.

Wow, Kucinich and Rand Paul--that's descriptive, I like it :)/>

But to be fair, I think the reason libertarians are often labeled as radicals is because of the party's platform which includes things like the repeal of the IRS and the Federal Reserve--of which I can't fathom the rationale.

You can't fathom it because we've had those two monsters in place for so long you feel it would destabilize our economy if we went away from them. Remember, both entities would have been considered a tool for centralized power in the days of our founding. Why can't we get a full on audit of the Fed? How is it that the IRS has the power to wield against specific groups or individuals? Because they are too powerful. Imagine how much money we waste through the "handling" of our tax dollars? Imagine the simplicity of having 10% of your income sent to the US General Fund, and 8% to the states general fund and that's it? Of course that's considered dangerous. Lol

No, I can't fathom the rationale behind abolishing the Fed because the benefits of having a central bank FAR outweigh the benefits of not having a central bank. And we know this because the history of the international political economy has proved it over and over again. Also, the flat tax rate you propose would be highly regressive and would increase the poverty rate, the poverty gap, and income inequality--all of which hamper economic growth.

I do not understand the statement, "And we know this because the history of the international political economy has proved it over and over again." Is it not arguable that it proves the exact opposite? Can war, conflict, and perceived threats be profitable for those who finance governments? Does it make a difference if our central bank is private or public? Is it significant that a small portion of our population and government decided in secret to adopt legislation to create our private central bank? Is it coincidental that the Fed and the IRS came into being in the same year? Can a private central bank threaten the sovereignty of a country? Should that be possible?

I agree with your statement regarding income tax. However, I think we could adopt a very simple tax structure based on a sales tax with graduated levels for basic necessities, consumer durables, luxury goods, and a negative tax for domestic capital goods and, a tax on capital gains. What is the overhead cost of the IRS? The complexities of the tax code seem to have more to do with creating demand for the services of lawyers, demand for the services of accountants, and loopholes for special interests than being fair, effective, efficient system of taxation.

[homersapien 11,513]

Give it 20 years, and I think it will be a viable 3rd party if one of the big two doesn't swallow it first. My age cohort is (in general) more pro-choice and much much more accepting of same-sex relationships, which dovetails nicely into the Libertarian "Keep the government out of my life" idea. I don't know if it's just my cohort, but I also see a lot of people my age (we'll say mid 20s to mid 30s) are really backing away quickly from the populist bent we were on when President Obama was elected the first time. After 5 years of the same old stuff, they're quickly becoming either apathetic or openly hostile.

I think we should come up with a name for what happened. I like the "Grand Disillusionment."

Sounds like I'm around the same age as you and I agree with your assessment that many of our generation have a framework that would allow for Libertarianism to profit. However, I would be shocked if the Libertarian Party actually competed with Dems and Republicans. As I think I mentioned before, the fact that libertarianism draws support from the outer ranges of both liberalism and conservatism make the electoral math pretty difficult IMO.

I also think that while many people support the idea of less government intrusion into our lives, the way it is packaged as an absolute aversion to that scares some people off. So IMO for libertarians to draw support necessary to compete in elections they will have to relax some of their viewpoints (just like Repubs and Dems do each [non-primary] election). However, because of their ideological angle I think that a relaxation of libertarianism would simply mean less differentiation between them and the traditional parties--quite an interesting dynamic.

It is. That's why we are often labeled as radicals. In fact, we actually hold to the values of the constitution despite its so called "faults". I tend to be between Rand Paul and Dennis K. I think government has taken a huge step backwards and part of the reason is crony capitalism.

Wow, Kucinich and Rand Paul--that's descriptive, I like it :)/>

But to be fair, I think the reason libertarians are often labeled as radicals is because of the party's platform which includes things like the repeal of the IRS and the Federal Reserve--of which I can't fathom the rationale.

You can't fathom it because we've had those two monsters in place for so long you feel it would destabilize our economy if we went away from them. Remember, both entities would have been considered a tool for centralized power in the days of our founding. Why can't we get a full on audit of the Fed? How is it that the IRS has the power to wield against specific groups or individuals? Because they are too powerful. Imagine how much money we waste through the "handling" of our tax dollars? Imagine the simplicity of having 10% of your income sent to the US General Fund, and 8% to the states general fund and that's it? Of course that's considered dangerous. Lol

No, I can't fathom the rationale behind abolishing the Fed because the benefits of having a central bank FAR outweigh the benefits of not having a central bank. And we know this because the history of the international political economy has proved it over and over again. Also, the flat tax rate you propose would be highly regressive and would increase the poverty rate, the poverty gap, and income inequality--all of which hamper economic growth.

I do not understand the statement, "And we know this because the history of the international political economy has proved it over and over again." Is it not arguable that it proves the exact opposite? Can war, conflict, and perceived threats be profitable for those who finance governments? Does it make a difference if our central bank is private or public? Is it significant that a small portion of our population and government decided in secret to adopt legislation to create our private central bank? Is it coincidental that the Fed and the IRS came into being in the same year? Can a private central bank threaten the sovereignty of a country? Should that be possible?

I agree with your statement regarding income tax. However, I think we could adopt a very simple tax structure based on a sales tax with graduated levels for basic necessities, consumer durables, luxury goods, and a negative tax for domestic capital goods and, a tax on capital gains. What is the overhead cost of the IRS? The complexities of the tax code seem to have more to do with creating demand for the services of lawyers, demand for the services of accountants, and loopholes for special interests than being fair, effective, efficient system of taxation.

I like that.

[autigeremt 6,776]

I can get behind a tax structure like that because it does require everyone to pay a share of the burden. It's better than the fecal matter we have now.

[AUTUmike 79]

Give it 20 years, and I think it will be a viable 3rd party if one of the big two doesn't swallow it first. My age cohort is (in general) more pro-choice and much much more accepting of same-sex relationships, which dovetails nicely into the Libertarian "Keep the government out of my life" idea. I don't know if it's just my cohort, but I also see a lot of people my age (we'll say mid 20s to mid 30s) are really backing away quickly from the populist bent we were on when President Obama was elected the first time. After 5 years of the same old stuff, they're quickly becoming either apathetic or openly hostile.

I think we should come up with a name for what happened. I like the "Grand Disillusionment."

Sounds like I'm around the same age as you and I agree with your assessment that many of our generation have a framework that would allow for Libertarianism to profit. However, I would be shocked if the Libertarian Party actually competed with Dems and Republicans. As I think I mentioned before, the fact that libertarianism draws support from the outer ranges of both liberalism and conservatism make the electoral math pretty difficult IMO.

I also think that while many people support the idea of less government intrusion into our lives, the way it is packaged as an absolute aversion to that scares some people off. So IMO for libertarians to draw support necessary to compete in elections they will have to relax some of their viewpoints (just like Repubs and Dems do each [non-primary] election). However, because of their ideological angle I think that a relaxation of libertarianism would simply mean less differentiation between them and the traditional parties--quite an interesting dynamic.

It is. That's why we are often labeled as radicals. In fact, we actually hold to the values of the constitution despite its so called "faults". I tend to be between Rand Paul and Dennis K. I think government has taken a huge step backwards and part of the reason is crony capitalism.

Wow, Kucinich and Rand Paul--that's descriptive, I like it :)/>

But to be fair, I think the reason libertarians are often labeled as radicals is because of the party's platform which includes things like the repeal of the IRS and the Federal Reserve--of which I can't fathom the rationale.

You can't fathom it because we've had those two monsters in place for so long you feel it would destabilize our economy if we went away from them. Remember, both entities would have been considered a tool for centralized power in the days of our founding. Why can't we get a full on audit of the Fed? How is it that the IRS has the power to wield against specific groups or individuals? Because they are too powerful. Imagine how much money we waste through the "handling" of our tax dollars? Imagine the simplicity of having 10% of your income sent to the US General Fund, and 8% to the states general fund and that's it? Of course that's considered dangerous. Lol

No, I can't fathom the rationale behind abolishing the Fed because the benefits of having a central bank FAR outweigh the benefits of not having a central bank. And we know this because the history of the international political economy has proved it over and over again. Also, the flat tax rate you propose would be highly regressive and would increase the poverty rate, the poverty gap, and income inequality--all of which hamper economic growth.

I do not understand the statement, "And we know this because the history of the international political economy has proved it over and over again." Is it not arguable that it proves the exact opposite? Can war, conflict, and perceived threats be profitable for those who finance governments? Does it make a difference if our central bank is private or public? Is it significant that a small portion of our population and government decided in secret to adopt legislation to create our private central bank? Is it coincidental that the Fed and the IRS came into being in the same year? Can a private central bank threaten the sovereignty of a country? Should that be possible?

I agree with your statement regarding income tax. However, I think we could adopt a very simple tax structure based on a sales tax with graduated levels for basic necessities, consumer durables, luxury goods, and a negative tax for domestic capital goods and, a tax on capital gains. What is the overhead cost of the IRS? The complexities of the tax code seem to have more to do with creating demand for the services of lawyers, demand for the services of accountants, and loopholes for special interests than being fair, effective, efficient system of taxation.

The history of IPE has shown that it is beneficial to have a central bank because central bank's allow nations to affect the business cycle through monetary policy, rather than simply fiscal policy. Among other things, the Fed allows us to control inflation and reduce unemployment. Also, for a nation as strong as the US in terms of price stability and investor confidence, the ability to control the money supply means that there is literally zero chance of default--a fact which cycles back to the maintained clout of the US in financial terms. I should have clarified though, that I am referring to autonomous central banks that subscribe to independent monetary policy as opposed to a concoction of fixed exchange rates and free capital flows.