Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

I'd like to know more about it.

I don't want to read Nozick again (read him for epistemology and metaphysics at college, I've had more fun in life. Cleaning drains, that sort of thing...) but I'd like to hear some stuff.

How do you resolve individual liberty with the issue of the protection of others, for example?

How many confessed libertarians are there at the asylum? How many sympathisers? I think that I know some, but not all I suspect.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Yeah, I'm there
Posts: 3310

this is most definitely a thread for PaintCHiPs.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 17206

I’m with them on most issues though I do consider myself more of a Constitutionalist.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: NZ
Posts: 877

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git

How do you resolve individual liberty with the issue of the protection of others, for example?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

That was interesting, Muffy. Thankyou.

Last edited by Smug Git on 10-31-2001 at 07:35 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

U4b, as a constitutionalist do you subscribe to the constitution of the USA in particular, or just the general idea of having a constitution which is at the base of government?

Some newer countries (like the Irish Republic, for example) have newer constitutions; does anyone know enough about them to say whether they are better or worse than the US constitution (I don't myself)?

Are there any parts of the US constitution that are 'wrong', in your opinion? I mean, if you have disquiet about certain things and yet the Supreme Court hasn't ruled them unconstitutional, they must be OK by the constitution i guess, which suggests that amending is necessary?

I quite like the idea of a smal(ish) written constitution and the machinery that goes with it, but I also quite like the more fluid (and voluminous, oh yes) constitution that we have here in the UK. And in some areas, it doesn't seem to make much difference; with the exception of Ireland (recently under British control) the US is the most 'understandable' and familiar place that I have been to abroad (although this is partly due to TV). Take away guns and have a monolithic National Health Service and things feel pretty familiar. Although you can keep all this Halloween business, I'll be burning a Catholic conspirator in effigy this November 5th instead.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Although you can keep all this Halloween business, I'll be burning a Catholic conspirator in effigy this November 5th instead.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Yeah, I'm there
Posts: 3310

it gets confusing here when you realize that not only do we have THE constitution but each state has a state constitution as well.

quote:

---

originally posted by Spooky

Evolving constitutions have the advantage of not being static and can move with the time and flow of a given society.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vyper

I believe that is why we have the amendment process. As the times changed so did the constitution. It was amended to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote, prohibit alchohol, un-prohibit alchohol etc etc.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

I believe that is why we have the amendment process. As the times changed so did the constitution. It was amended to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote, prohibit alchohol, un-prohibit alchohol etc etc.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

I'm one of them Libertarian folks.

Regarding liberty and protection: personal liberty does not extend to the right to initiate force against others. Those who initiate force against others may be met with force.

There are many instances in which personal liberty infringes on the safety of others. As a general rule, libertarians draw a line between conduct which directly jeopordizes the physical safety of others and conduct which could indirectly create danger, especially danger of a non-physical nature. For example: Libertarians tend to rigorously oppose any law against gun ownership, but they rigorously support the prosecution of those who use guns to seize property or to take lives. Libertarians stringently oppose laws against drug possession or use, but if you drive drunk or murder someone in a crack binge, we'll lock you away.

Libertarians have no truck whatsoever with restrictions on liberty in order to protect dangers to "safety" through morals or hurtful speech. You will never hear of a Libertarian supporting hate-speech codes or anti-homosexuality statutes. The US Libertarian party was one of the only organizations in the US to oppose the recent anti-terrorism legislation that passed the Congress by such huge margins; we will generally err on the side of press freedom and free speech where miloitary security is concerned.

Regarding the US Constitution: we tend to believe that the document itself is very much consistent with our philosophy of limited government and enumerated powers; Jefferson is one of our philosophical heroes. We do tend to think that the original intent of the document has been perverted by recent judicial interpretation, however. How can it be, for example, that it was necessary for the government to pass a constitutional amendment in 1919 to outlaw the consumption of alcohol, but a mere thirty years later the Congress had magically gained the constitutional power to outlaw marijuana, cocaine, and heroin? We're particularly irked by the New Deal interpretations that basically placed ALL individual economic behavior under the purview of the government. We don't dislike the constitution as written, but the constitution as written is hardly the law of the land anymore. We would contend that those powers given to the government in the Constitution have been interpreted far too broadly.

Delighted to address more questions if you have them.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: NZ
Posts: 877

ooh...ooh... *sticking hand up*....I can rant about constitutionalism too!

There is a common misconception that constitutions are great political documents. They are not. They are merely a collection of ideas.
The politics behind the constitution is entirely dependent on the government.
For example, America has a triple entrenched constitution which acts as a huge constraint on the government. This isn't because of any inherently binding principles within the document itself though, it is because of the American government - The bicameral system, the power of the supreme court, and the democratic process to which your government is bound in law to uphold through the constitution, but only because it has been determined to be that way by the voters.
New Zealand has a constitutional document in our bill of (no) rights, however, it is not entrenched, and it has a limiting clause in it which means it does not over ride any other act of parliment, or bind the government absolutely. It does, however, mean that if a piece of legislation is ambiguous, then it will get given a meaning consistent with the bill of rights. It acts purely as a restrictive document, disempowering the government rather than empowering the people.
Russia has an incredibly empowering, beautifully worded constitution which dosn't mean jackshit as everyone ignores it.
So - when you talk about constitutionalism, you are not talking about constitutions per se, you are talking about systems of government and the checks and balances against parliment. If you have a flaw with your constitutional process, it is usually a flaw withing the government or judiciary.
For example, in the states, with the triple entrenchen right to freedom of speech, child pornography was deemed not to be an issue of free speech - and thus banned.
In NZ, with our poxy non-constitution, child porn was deemed to be an issue of free speech, but was banned anyway because the government has final say.
Rights and freedoms can be written down on any old piece of paper - but it's the government, and the voters, that enforce those rights and freedoms.
As for the newer constitutions being better - well, thats really a matter of opinion. My view is that because they have been drafted more recently, they are better suited to modern society. The wording of older constitutions has given rise to much ambiguity and the need for some pretty strained interpretations. Newer constitutions have had the benefit of hindsight when being written and people are now wiser as to how things will be interpreted.
My biggest criticism of the US constitution is that it may be too
restrictive. In a sense it is legislation for future generations whose majority may not have the same values. For it to be changed it would take 75% of the vote to change the present system to suit any future society. The diversity of social opinion, and the voting statistics would suggest that this would be highly unlikely without a precondition of public outrage motivating the essential conformity of vote.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4252

Stated as simply as possible, Libertarianism to me is the idea that you may do whatever you want as long as it does not significantly infringe on others ability to do the same.

It's about maximum freedom for everyone, minimal bureaucracy, maximum responsibility and independence. It is admittedly a harsh and somewhat selfish philosophy. It disinstitutionalizes philanthropy and forces self reliance.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

Thanks Jr. and Muffy

I wonder, should the force with which transgressors be met come from the government (through law enforcement or army) or from well-meaning individuals in the vicinity, or both?

Also I am interested to know if practical considerations (such as the difficulty of dealing with criminals with assault rifles, APDS ammunition, handgrenades, etc so as to minimise the risk of death to innocent civilians) can override the opposition to restriction laws?

Muffy's post was illuminating too, and taken in conjunction with Jr's concerns about constitutional abuse by the US government, does it mean that the constitution is failing anyway as it is being ignored by the government?

Which brings me to the role of democracy. The way to stop this abuse, if the judiciary is unwilling to do so, is through democratic means, by electing those of like mind. But do libertarians accept democracy? If the constitutiion were made restrictive by democratic and constitutional means (ie, through the amendment process) would libertarians accept the 'will of the people' and obey the law? Do they obey laws in general if they consider them to be unjust?

I have many questions, I think I may have to get hold of a book or two (such as that suggested by Muffy). i am enjoying this thread and appreciate the effort that people are putting into answering me.

Muffy, where do you stand politically, or do you prefer to kep it to yourself? I am an embarassed sort of Tory, I would say, although I have no interest in party politics above the issues, so i don't have a party that fits me in every place.

Last edited by Smug Git on 11-01-2001 at 12:01 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: NZ
Posts: 877

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Muffy, where do you stand politically, or do you prefer to kep it to yourself? I am an embarassed sort of Tory, I would say, although I have no interest in party politics above the issues, so i don't have a party that fits me in every place.

---

I'm not sure. No theory I have encountered sits well with me. I have very libertarian views but not enough faith to swing that way totally. Most libertarians state that without taxes going to welfare, people would be more charitable. History would suggest otherwise. I do think we need a safety net for those undeserving of hardship. John Rawls' overall principle of liberty only being compromised to the extent where it ensures that a minimum quality of life level is maintained is probably the closest thing I have seen to what I would like. I can't really say that I agree with a social contract approach to anything more than the procedural side of government though as I think we would disagree too much about the substantive values. I think technically that makes me some sort of egalitarian, but I don't have enough socialist views to fit completely in that category either.
I'm sure that was incredibly un-enlightening

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 17206

Which brings me to the role of democracy. The way to stop this abuse, if the judiciary is unwilling to do so, is through democratic means, by electinf those of like mind. But do libertarians accept democracy? If the constitutiion were made restrictive by democratic and constitutional means (ie, through the amendment process) would libertarians accept the 'will of the people' and obey the law? Do they obey laws in general if they consider them to be unjust?

the constitution is big on state sovereignty which I agree with. I think that most government should be as local as possible and anything voted on should not infringe on rights out lined in our bill of rights. As long as those rights remain intact the will of the people should be the law of the land. Making sure our constitutional rights remain intact and our military is strong are two of the few jobs I think the federal government should have. The constitution has been interpreted poorly and that is why the need for the constitutionalist party came to be. Here is why they are not libertarians or republicans....http://home.earthlink.net/~jmarkels/cp/why.html

I don’t agree with all of their stances but agree with the gists of their stances.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dog Breath
Stated as simply as possible, Libertarianism to me is the idea that you may do whatever you want as long as it does not significantly infringe on others ability to do the same.

It's about maximum freedom for everyone, minimal bureaucracy, maximum responsibility and independence. It is admittedly a harsh and somewhat selfish philosophy. It disinstitutionalizes philanthropy and forces self reliance.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Bangor, ME
Posts: 10238

*raises hand*

I am guilty of being a Libertarian

HARRY BROWNE RULES YOU ALL!!!!!

*ahem*

that must have slipped out. i was one of the two people in my district that voted for harry browne.

if you would like to read a book about libertarianism read Ain't No Ones Business If You Do, incredible book that explains the majority of libertarian ideals. there is a basic overview in the link i provided.

but i would recommend you read the entire book

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

Thanks fiend, I'll bookmark that.

As I understand it, U4b, you would look to achieve a better interpretation of the constitution through the democratic process then (i.e., by voting for the party that will try to change it). That is cool, i just wondered about the constitution and what it said about democracy.

Am I right in saying that you are stuck with the supreme court judges that you have until they die and are reappointed by the president of the day? They seem to be rather political (I guess that is natural if they are appointed by political animals like presidents); does this system of appointment work? Will it always work, do you think? They seem to be the most important people in the whole system of checks and balances.

It seems to me that many systems yield the same sort of results in the end, similar conditions for people and so on...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Denver
Posts: 20219

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dog Breath
...maximum responsibility...

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Yeah, I'm there
Posts: 3310

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mordecai


This, I fear, is the greatest stumbling block for libertarianism in America, the current trend in this country is the cry of, "IT'S NOT MY FAULT!", and well, it's sickening.

-m

---