What is your Merkin political persuasion?

[Coito ergo sum]

SSDD then?

Nah...I'm not a Paul guy. In 1988, I hardly new his policy ideas. I knew he was this new thing called a "libertarian" which was basically the "leave me the fuck alone" party. I like that idea. Get off my back and leave me the fuck alone. That's generally a good policy to follow. It's Paul's other policies that bother me.

But "leave me alone" ultimately means society will break down completely.

It's a general statement, not to be interpreted as meaning a complete lack of rules and a complete lack of government. It's more of a presumption.

Like - "adults should be allowed to smoke pot all they want, because there is no good reason for it to be illegal..." etc....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's a general statement, not to be interpreted as meaning a complete lack of rules and a complete lack of government. It's more of a presumption.

Like - "adults should be allowed to smoke pot all they want, because there is no good reason for it to be illegal..." etc....

And were does one draw the line?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's a general statement, not to be interpreted as meaning a complete lack of rules and a complete lack of government. It's more of a presumption.

Like - "adults should be allowed to smoke pot all they want, because there is no good reason for it to be illegal..." etc....

And were does one draw the line?

Well, the best way that I've found to draw the line is to have a Constitution wherein the powers of government are set forth, and power is disbursed among several different areas and regions, wherein on man does not have supreme power, but must work within certain roles. One way is that the lawmaking function is separated from the law enforcement function and both are separated from the judicial function, and different levels of government address different issues. The government should be pretty strictly limited in certain areas deemed "fundamental" to the individual, wherein the individual is sovereign in those areas. In those areas, the individual ought not be subjected to government intrusion. In areas where conduct can be regulated or prohibited, then the political process ought to be set up in such a way that provides representation of the will of the people, and periodic changing of the individuals in government, such that power is not held by the same individuals for very long.

With respect to what a person is entitled to voluntarily ingest or inhale, I would say that the line is pretty clearly drawn at adulthood and that if someone wants to ingest a substance to end his or her life, that ought to be no business of the State (other than to the extent that the consumption is not voluntary), and logically if instead of exercising a right to die, one would rather get high, then it seems to me to be no business of the government absent some sort of compulsion or lack of consent. This is because when regulating individual autonomy, there ought to be a reason for doing it in the nature of prevention of harm to another individual as a result. Laws punishing victimless crimes, and laws regulating conduct that does not harm others seems to me to be arbitrary, and government power ought not be exercised arbitrarily.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry, but I don't see the libbies operating within the framework of the Constitution, they just use the parts they like and try to subvert the rest.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sorry, but I don't see the libbies operating within the framework of the Constitution, they just use the parts they like and try to subvert the rest.

Well, I'm not a libby. I was just answering your question about where I draw the line. I don't think there is a line that can be categorically defined with mathematical precision. That, of course, doesn't mean that there are no lines and that any government action is by its nature right and proper and/or that the majority ought to be able to vote on your sexual habits, smoking habits, and what you think and publish. These are some pretty clearly demarcated areas. I've heard a lot of people say things around here about trusting the majority, and that the majority should be able to vote about anything, including what we can say. They seem to trust that people will never vote the wrong way on those issues. I've seen enough to know that the majority will silence the opposition sometimes, and they will invade the bedroom or the womb or the lungs and stomachs of its citizens, all in the name of benevolence, such that offensive things won't be heard, or hallucenogenic things won't be tasted..... However, I do have as a basic precept that personal autonomy and human liberty are valuable, and necessary things. One of the jobs of government is to set up a framework to secure these liberties because doing that, and providing for the common defense and for the general welfare of the people are the things for which governments are instituted among people. Where government goes beyond that into enforcing morals, opinions, sexual preferences, and the like, then the government is entering into areas that ought to be left to people to work out among themselves.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I didn't say you were a libby, Mr. Touchy. I said I don't see the libbies operating...

A for the rest, tl:dr

[Seabass]

I would be a Democrat, albeit on the libertarian wing of the party. Someone like Mike Gravel is pretty close to what I believe. Unfortunately, while that kind of liberal prevails in Europe, I understand they are far less common in the US.

Actually, I suspect that if we had more political parties, a liberal (in the European sense) party would probably be the most popular.

Registered Democrats still dominate the political playing field with more than 42 million voters, compared to 30 million Republicans and 24 million independents.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/s ... 52171688/1


According to most polls that I've seen, independents tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Moreover, many socially liberal/fiscally conservative voters feel trapped into voting for the major parties, since a vote for a third party is considered a "wasted vote".

If you take most independents, combine them with all the socially liberal, fiscally conservative Democrats and Republicans, I think you're looking at a pretty big voting bloc.

Alas, dislodging the major parties from power is easier said than done.

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't say you were a libby, Mr. Touchy. I said I don't see the libbies operating...

A for the rest, tl:dr

Not touchy about it. Some libertarians are pretty selective on the application of their constitutional principles. Generally, I think that is because libertarianism is not coextensive with Jeffersonianism or constitutionalism. If libertarians wrote the constitution, I think it would be different, as some of the areas where it is lawful and proper for the government to act in our constitutionally limited republic, libertarianism interposes philosophical objections.

But, you'll find a lot of supposed libertarians talking about original intent, and what the "founders" intended ,and all that stuff. I've pointed out that the founders didn't intend to create a libertarian society, but the libertarians hold fast to the idea that the government should be limited to only those areas where it is authorized to act in the constitution. That's understandable, because government power - federal government power specifically - has sort of increased over the last couple hundred years, and things that would have been unthinkable for the feds to mandate 100 years ago are now generally assumed to be normal.

Inevitably, though, the people that I talk to that harp about "original intent" are doing as you say - being selective. It's funny, on one issue in particular, immigration, the original intent folks are absolutely sure that the federal government has the power and authority to control, regulate and prohibit immigration. I find it humorous to ask them to find the provision in the constitution wherein the federal government has that power (other than the power to naturalize citizens). They never, of course, can find such a provision in there, so then I ask them why they support federal immigration laws when there is nothing in the constitution that authorizes such laws to be made, and that therefore immigration would fall under the originalists' favorite amendment, the 10th amendment, which states very clearly that the powers not delegated to the feds under the constitution are vested in the States, or to the people. That's the States' rights provision.

So, anyone advancing the original intent of the "founders" can't escape the fact that the founders intended that the States have the power over immigration, so any border fences, visas, green cards, and all that, should properly be State run enterprises. They remain steadfast, however, in insisting that the constitution empowers the federal government to regulate in this area.

So, to make a long post short, I've long-since discarded any adherence to any sort of "original intent" arguments, and I abandoned any idea of being a libertarian more than 20 years ago.

[tattuchu]

Pretty Persuasion

[Coito ergo sum]

I would be a Democrat, albeit on the libertarian wing of the party. Someone like Mike Gravel is pretty close to what I believe. Unfortunately, while that kind of liberal prevails in Europe, I understand they are far less common in the US.

Actually, I suspect that if we had more political parties, a liberal (in the European sense) party would probably be the most popular.

Registered Democrats still dominate the political playing field with more than 42 million voters, compared to 30 million Republicans and 24 million independents.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/s ... 52171688/1


According to most polls that I've seen, independents tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Moreover, many socially liberal/fiscally conservative voters feel trapped into voting for the major parties, since a vote for a third party is considered a "wasted vote".

If you take most independents, combine them with all the socially liberal, fiscally conservative Democrats and Republicans, I think you're looking at a pretty big voting bloc.

Alas, dislodging the major parties from power is easier said than done.

Democrat has only very recently become synonymous or almost synonymous with "liberal." In fact, arguably, there still is a large facet of the Democrat party which is conservative. That's why Obama found it as hard or harder to deal with his own party than the Republicans when he had the majority in the Congress. Many Democrats aren't fully on board with the liberal side of things.

I think one of the ways to foster a third party would be to get rid of public funding of elections. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml

The amount of money that Democrats and Republicans get far exceeds what anybody else gets, so it, as a matter of government policy, entrenches the Dems and Reps in power. New third parties are not eligible for any funding, and any funding they do get is contingent on how many votes they get in the national election. So, the system winds up rewarding the already rich and powerful, and basically raising the cost of entry into the field by quite a bit.

[Svartalf]

I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 as a protest vote. I was in my "all the politicians are crooks and both parties are the same shit upside down" phase.

That's not a phase, it's a fact.

[Tero]

Librul. Have to be. In Europe I could be more to the center or even green. They gots public transport so I would tax cars as they do.

[FBM]

But "leave me alone" ultimately means society will break down completely.

Sign me up!

[Robert_S]

[redunderthebed]

Communist.