• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Founding Fathers Were Libertarians

Do You Believe Our Founding Fathers Were Libertarians

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 34.1%

  • No

    Votes: 18 43.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 9 22.0%
  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
Agent Ferris said:
A social contract is antithetical to the non-aggression principle and the right of self ownership so we are necessarily opposed to the state, period.
Click to expand...

Being that as it is, slaves were not considered people in the truest sense at the time by a large majority. They had no rights per say.

Of course most of the founding fathers were not slave holders, but in the interest of the union of states, it had to be accepted or this nation could not have been born at all. They needed the heavy slave states to support the war against England.

As I mentioned comparing life, thoughts etc of those 200+ years ago to our sensibility's today just does not work.
 
Agent Ferris said:
The right of self ownership IE individual sovereignty is the central tenet of the Libertarian party and thus anyone who owned a slave or supported slavery could not possibly be a libertarian.
Click to expand...

The founders were not subscribing to our definition of what is or is not a libertarian. In fact I agree they were not.

The problem is they were closer to libertarianism than anything else we have today.

Agent Ferris said:
The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Again slaves were property and not considered citizens or even human by many. The view of slavery then was accepted and part of everyday society before this country was even born.

Your argument really does not apply. Don't get me wrong I agree, but it still just does not apply.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
We are?



I thought we were for individual liberty and limited government. You want the anarchists. There two doors down. :ssst:
Click to expand...

How can a party be for individual sovereignty and the non-aggression principle and yet not be anarchist? The Libertarian party is an anarchist and a minarchist party, those are the two sides of the spectrum within the Libertarian party.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
The Libertarian party is an anarchist and a minarchist party.
Click to expand...
When you have to make up your own definitions in order to make your point, your point is necessarily unsound.
 
Blackdog said:
The founders were not subscribing to our definition of what is or is not a libertarian. In fact I agree they were not.

The problem is they were closer to libertarianism than anything else we have today.

Again slaves were property and not considered citizens or even human by many. The view of slavery then was accepted and part of everyday society before this country was even born.

Your argument really does not apply. Don't get me wrong I agree, but it still just does not apply.
Click to expand...


All of the Founding Fathers believed in state sovereignty as opposed to individual sovereignty they were no more Libertarians than any other statists.
 
Agent Ferris said:
All of the Founding Fathers believed in state sovereignty as opposed to individual sovereignty they were no more Libertarians than any other statists.
Click to expand...

According to whom??? That is hogwash, they also believed in individual liberty and representation. The Constitution pretty much bears this out.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
How can a party be for individual sovereignty and the non-aggression principle and yet not be anarchist? The Libertarian party is an anarchist and a minarchist party, those are the two sides of the spectrum within the Libertarian party.
Click to expand...




It is not.



Have you been to lp.org?



3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
When you have to make up your own definitions in order to make your point, your point is necessarily unsound.
Click to expand...

Make up my own definitions? WTF are you talking about? The Libertarians view range the gauntlet of anarchist to minarchist. Minarchy is as far as the Libertarian party goes in accepting the legitimacy of the state.

Furthermore; the Libertarian platform enshrines right in the very first sentence the sovereignty of the individual and thus is necessarily opposed to statism of any kind.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
It is not.



Have you been to lp.org?



3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.
Click to expand...

Agent Ferris said:
Make up my own definitions? WTF are you talking about? The Libertarians view range the gauntlet of anarchist to minarchist. Minarchy is as far as the Libertarian party goes in accepting the legitimacy of the state.

Furthermore; the Libertarian platform enshrines right in the very first sentence the sovereignty of the individual and thus is necessarily opposed to statism of any kind.
Click to expand...

and this is why people think the LP doesn't stand for anything in particular, no-one can make up their minds about what they want from it.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
It is not.
Click to expand...

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

Platform | Libertarian Party


The sovereignty of the individual and statism are two mutually exclusive concepts.

Have you been to lp.org?



3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.
Click to expand...

Yes the Libertarian party supports elections, and election reform as a means to bring about a Libertarian society, that does not mean that they support statism. Elections are the means by which to bring about the end of individual sovereignty.
 
Blackdog said:
According to whom??? That is hogwash, they also believed in individual liberty and representation. The Constitution pretty much bears this out.
Click to expand...

I said individual sovereignty. The right of the Federal Government to levy taxes, regulate commerce, conscript armies etc are violations of the right of self ownership and the non-aggression principle.

The Founding Fathers were not Libertarians they were Federalists.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Make up my own definitions? WTF are you talking about?
Click to expand...
The terms you use to describe the platform of the LP are not those that the LP uses to describe itself.
 
So slave ownership was a natural right removed from the government. Are you sure there wasn't some form of license for slave ownership that had some sort of state involvement, possibly for every owner or every slave? I doubt they'd let people have slaves untaxed and running about all willy nilly.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Everything in their platform is either anarchist or minarchist in nature.
Click to expand...
Make up your mind -- is it anarchist or minarchist?
Nothing in the LP platform supports the former.
 
Goobieman said:
Make up your mind -- is it anarchist or minarchist?
Nothing in the LP platform supports the former.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's one of the most annoying misconceptions as well, and pretty much illustrates that some people have no clue as to what they're talking about when they address libertarianism on the whole. Libertarianism is not anarchism, they are two very different things.

As to the founders, they are well closer to modern day Libertarianism than they are to either of the main parties.
 
Agent Ferris said:
I said individual sovereignty. The right of the Federal Government to levy taxes, regulate commerce, conscript armies etc are violations of the right of self ownership and the non-aggression principle.
Click to expand...

Again only to you.

Agent Ferris said:
The Founding Fathers were not Libertarians they were Federalists.
Click to expand...

They were AGAIN closer to libertarians than anything else we have today even if they weren't.

PS some were Federalists some weren't. This according to their own definition.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Spud, I got mine from the LP website. AF got his from ?????
Click to expand...

Just to make the point, when I was doing my polls on what Libertarians believed, I had it made clear to me that many(most?) do not believe the same as the LP website.
 
Ikari said:
As to the founders, they are well closer to modern day Libertarianism than they are to either of the main parties.
Click to expand...

Care to expound upon that?
 
As an aside, all this thread has proved to me is that the Libertarian Party is as fractious as the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in their make-up.
 
samsmart said:
Care to expound upon that?
Click to expand...

I think it's rather self-explanitory. The main parties now are for more and more government expansion with greater emphasis on federal power along with interventionist policies. While the founders can't all be whitewashed into a single political philosophy, many held convictions of limited government with power delegated to smaller governments such as State and local governments. There was a fairly large push for minarchism as well. In those terms, while modern day libertarianism may not be exactly the same thing; it is much closer to the overall political philosophy than the current main parties are.
 
Goobieman said:
Make up your mind -- is it anarchist or minarchist?
Nothing in the LP platform supports the former.
Click to expand...

Individual sovereignty is the central plank of the libertarian platform, it is the first line IN the platform, and the sovereignty of the individual is antithetical to a statist society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom