• 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 .
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then please do explain to me how you can have individual sovereignty AND a statist society. The two are antithetical concepts.
 
Blackdog said:
Again only to you.
Click to expand...

No, it is according to anyone who understands the concept of individual sovereignty which is another term for the right of self ownership; levying taxes, conscripting armies, and regulating commerce are all violations of the right of self ownership, because they are not voluntary actions, rather the state uses its monopoly on the use of force to compel the individual against their will.

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

How were they closer to Libertarians than they were to Republicans or Democrats?
 
Agent Ferris said:
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.
Click to expand...
And yet, the specifics of platform describe the proper role of government, necessitating that the LP recognizes the validity of the state.
As such, your argument that the LP is anarchist fails.
 
Hatuey said:
... States rights is something both the Founding slave owners and Libertarians all seem to be fond of.
Click to expand...

Slavery, something those on the Left and the Democrat Party have a long long history of promoting, protecting, and perpetuating, to this very day.
 
Agent Ferris said:
How were they closer to Libertarians than they were to Republicans or Democrats?
Click to expand...

Their creation of a Constitution creating a government of limited defined powers, a thing that had never existed before and no longer exists today, thanks to the Republocrats and Demicans.
 
Blackdog said:
Again only to you.
Click to expand...

No, it is according to anyone who understands the concept of individual sovereignty which is another term for the right of self ownership; levying taxes, conscripting armies, and regulating commerce are all violations of the right of self ownership, because they are not voluntary actions, rather the state uses its monopoly on the use of force to compel the individual against their will.

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

How were they closer to Libertarians than they were to Republicans or Democrats?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Their creation of a Constitution creating a government of limited defined powers, a thing that had never existed before and no longer exists today, thanks to the Republocrats and Demicans.
Click to expand...

So in other words they created a social contract which created a state monopoly enshrined with the sole and exclusive right of the use of force. This is antithetical to individual sovereignty.
 
Agent Ferris said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hello?

Individual sovereignity stops right at the same point anyone else's right to flail their arms stops...at the edge of personal space inside which a person has a reasonable expectation that he's going to be hit.

Welcome to the real world, where the pipe dreams of liberalism, socialism, marxism, and anarchy don't work, ever.

A sovereign individual is free to make decisions regarding his personal choices.

He is not free of the consequences of those choices.

If he chooses to spend his entire paycheck at the tavern, there's no reason anyone else should be obligated to feed him, or his family.

If he chooses to kill the bartender, he gets to pay the price, in jail and maybe at the end of a rope.

Because he doesn't have the individual sovereign right to invade the sovereignity of others. It's the sphere of government to punish those who do so invade.
 
Agent Ferris said:
So in other words they created a social contract which created a state monopoly enshrined with the sole and exclusive right of the use of force. This is antithetical to individual sovereignty.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

Read the Oresteia, it explains the issues you're confused on.

Stop reading Marx and Obama.
 
Goobieman said:
And yet, the specifics of platform describe the proper role of government, necessitating that the LP recognizes the validity of the state.
Click to expand...

It never recognizes the validity of the state.

In fact it says:

"Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things..."[/I]


Now tell me exactly how is a government going to continue to exist that can not forcibly extort taxes from the citizenry or impose taxes on any of its citizens? Every policy in the platform is aimed at bringing about a stateless libertarian society.


As such, your argument that the LP is anarchist fails.
Click to expand...

In the platform they talk about ways they wish to use political office to diminish the state, nowhere in the platform does it say that government is necessary or legitimate and to the contrary the platform is aimed at taking the necessary steps to abolish the state completely.
 
Also, one should note that the power to tax, under the Constitution written by the Founders, was limited to tariffs on imports. Individuals were not taxed.

It took a Constitutional Amendment foisted on the public by the lying Progressives to impose the anti-freedom income tax on all of us.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Now tell me exactly how is a government going to continue to exist that can not forcibly extort taxes from the citizenry or impose taxes on any of its citizens? Every policy in the platform is aimed at bringing about a stateless libertarian society.
Click to expand...

By limiting it's spending to that sphere lawfully allowed it by the Constitution, thereby keeping the size of the government small enough that the original mechanism of tariffs would keep the government afloat?

Agent Ferris said:
In the platform they talk about ways they wish to use political office to diminish the state, nowhere in the platform does it say that government is necessary or legitimate and to the contrary the platform is aimed at taking the necessary steps to abolish the state completely.
Click to expand...

The document doesn't say that air is necessary either. And no, the Libertarian Party is NOT an Anarchist party.

Only total fools and little children are anarchists.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hello?

Individual sovereignity stops right at the same point anyone else's right to flail their arms stops...at the edge of personal space inside which a person has a reasonable expectation that he's going to be hit.

Welcome to the real world, where the pipe dreams of liberalism, socialism, marxism, and anarchy don't work, ever.

A sovereign individual is free to make decisions regarding his personal choices.

He is not free of the consequences of those choices.

If he chooses to spend his entire paycheck at the tavern, there's no reason anyone else should be obligated to feed him, or his family.

If he chooses to kill the bartender, he gets to pay the price, in jail and maybe at the end of a rope.

Because he doesn't have the individual sovereign right to invade the sovereignity of others. It's the sphere of government to punish those who do so invade.
Click to expand...

lol you don't need the state to prevent or punish the crime of murder which is clearly a violation of the right of self ownership. Furthermore; the idea that you can end violence by enshrining in a gang of men a legitimate right to use violence "for the common good" is counterintuitive.
 
Agent Ferris said:
lol you don't need the state to prevent or punish the crime of murder which is clearly a violation of the right of self ownership. Furthermore; the idea that you can end violence by enshrining in a gang of men a legitimate right to use violence "for the common good" is counterintuitive.
Click to expand...

Yes, you need the state to punish the crime of murder.

You need the state to DEFINE the crime of murder.

You really really REALLY need to read the Oresteia.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
By limiting it's spending to that sphere lawfully allowed it by the Constitution, thereby keeping the size of the government small enough that the original mechanism of tariffs would keep the government afloat?
Click to expand...

Congress has always had the power to levy taxes and thus the power to steal from the individual. Furthermore; who says the state should have the right to impose tariffs anyways? What makes that any better than having the power to levy taxes? What business is it of yours or anyone else's if I decide to trade my goods with another individual in another country and what right do you or anyone else have to impose a fee on us for entering into voluntary contractual agreements with one another?


The document doesn't say that air is necessary either. And no, the Libertarian Party is NOT an Anarchist party.
Click to expand...

The Libertarian is an anarchist/minarchist political party, in fact that is the largest single debate within the party, whether to allow for minarchist elements for the sake of pragmatism or to adhere to principle and remain fully anarchist.

Only total fools and little children are anarchists.
Click to expand...

GFYS and the state you road in on.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes, you need the state to punish the crime of murder.
Click to expand...

No you don't, all you need is private arbitration and the right of individual and collective retroactive self defense.

You need the state to DEFINE the crime of murder.
Click to expand...

No you don't all you need is a societal axiom; such as, the non-aggression principle and/or the right of self ownership.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, it's not.

Read the Oresteia, it explains the issues you're confused on.

Stop reading Marx and Obama.
Click to expand...

lmfao try reading Rothbard, Mises, or Friedman.

"Marx or Obama" lol you really got me there. :roll:

"Who says anarchy, says negation of government;
Who says negation of government, says affirmation of the people;
Who says affirmation of the people, says individual liberty;
Who says individual liberty, says sovereignty of each;
Who says sovereignty of each, says equality;
...Who says equality, says solidarity or fraternity;
Who says fraternity, says social order.
By contrast:
Who says government, says negation of the people;
Who says negation of the people, says affirmation of political authority;
Who says affirmation of political authority, says individual dependency;
Who says individual dependency, says class supremacy,
Who says class supremacy, says inequality;
Who says inequality, says antagonism;
Who says antagonism, says civil war;
From which it follows that who says government, says civil war. Yes, anarchy is order, whereas government is civil war. ” -- Anselme Bellegarrigue

"Although anarchism rests on liberal intellectual foundations, notably the distinction between state and society, the protean character of the doctrine makes it difficult to disinguish clearly different schools of anarchist thought. But one important distinction is between individualist anarchism and social anarchism. The former emphasizes individual liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, the importance of private property or possession, and the iniquity of all monopolies. It may be seen as liberalism taken to an extreme conclusion. 'Anarcho-capitalism' is a contemporary variant of this school." -- Tom Bottomor
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Also, one should note that the power to tax, under the Constitution written by the Founders, was limited to tariffs on imports. Individuals were not taxed.
Click to expand...

Bull****, they imposed excise taxes all of the time; such as, the Whiskey Act of 1791 which resulted in the Whiskey Rebellion.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Congress has always had the power to levy taxes and thus the power to steal from the individual.
Click to expand...

And the courts, until the 16th Amendment, have always ruled that taxes in individual income are unconstitutional.

You could try reading your history sometime.

Agent Ferris said:
Furthermore; who says the state should have the right to impose tariffs anyways?
Click to expand...

The people who wrote the Constitution of the United States of America, and the state legislatures that ratified it.

Controlling national borders.

It's something governments are SUPPOSED to do.

Agent Ferris said:
What makes that any better than having the power to levy taxes?
Click to expand...

You mean besides the fact that I wouldn't have to fill out thirty pages of BS forms every April? or that the government doesn't have first call on my wages?

I say that tariffs are better, using this standard, people without standards may FEEL differently.

Agent Ferris said:
What business is it of yours or anyone else's if I decide to trade my goods with another individual in another country
Click to expand...

It's that border thang. Some people don't understand.

In some future millenia, there won't be borders, there won't be nations trying to steal from us. Then things will be different.

In the here and now, borders and the maintenance thereof, are essential.

Agent Ferris said:
and what right do you or anyone else have to impose a fee on us for entering into voluntary contractual agreements with one another?
Click to expand...

Borders, buddy. You're crossing the imaginary but very real line between two autonomous and sovereign states. That gives them the authority to regulate your commerce.

Agent Ferris said:
The Libertarian is an anarchist/minarchist political party,
Click to expand...

Damn, boy. Pick one, anarchist or limited government. It can't be both, not with us that use words correctly.

Agent Ferris said:
in fact that is the largest single debate within the party, whether to allow for minarchist elements for the sake of pragmatism or to adhere to principle and remain fully anarchist.
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

The Libertarian Party is not an anarchist party. I've been a member for years, and the LP stands for limited government, not no government.

Agent Ferris said:
GFYS and the state you road in on.
Click to expand...

Ah, there's your level of competence talking now.
 
Agent Ferris said:
No you don't, all you need is private arbitration and the right of individual and collective retroactive self defense.



No you don't all you need is a societal axiom; such as, the non-aggression principle and/or the right of self ownership.
Click to expand...

no, you need to DEFINE the term "murder" before you can legislate penalties for certain actions.

Not all killing is murder.
 
Agent Ferris said:
"Although anarchism rests on liberal intellectual foundations, notably the distinction between state and society, the protean character of the doctrine makes it difficult to disinguish clearly different schools of anarchist thought.
Click to expand...

No, it's not difficult at all.

The word "anarchy" means "no government".

Period.

Perfectly plain, perfectly simple, a perfectly potty notion, given what the realities of human nature are. But lots of damn fools are running around calling themselves "anarchists", mostly because they're either ignorant of what the word means or ignorant of what the culmination of the concept produces.

Agent Ferris said:
But one important distinction is between individualist anarchism and social anarchism. The former emphasizes individual liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, the importance of private property or possession, and the iniquity of all monopolies. It may be seen as liberalism taken to an extreme conclusion. 'Anarcho-capitalism' is a contemporary variant of this school." -- Tom Bottomor
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the essence of "individual anarchism" would be the monopoly of power one has over oneself. Ergo, there can be no iniquity of "all" monopolies.

Nor is "anarcho-capitalism" a valid concept, since the essence of capitalism is the possession of property and the freedom to buy and sell, neither of which exists in any condition of anarchy.
 
Agent Ferris said:
It never recognizes the validity of the state.
Click to expand...
You obviously havent rerad the platform.
In it it describes and/or recognizes innumerable actions that are valid functions of the state.
If the state itrself is not valid, how can any of its functions be valid?

You simply do not understand the position of the LP.
I believe this failure to understand is willful.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, it's not difficult at all.

The word "anarchy" means "no government".

Period.

Perfectly plain, perfectly simple, a perfectly potty notion, given what the realities of human nature are. But lots of damn fools are running around calling themselves "anarchists", mostly because they're either ignorant of what the word means or ignorant of what the culmination of the concept produces.
Click to expand...

There are many schools of anarchist thought, there are collective anarchists and there are individualist anarchists.

Sorry, but the essence of "individual anarchism" would be the monopoly of power one has over oneself. Ergo, there can be no iniquity of "all" monopolies.
Click to expand...

:roll: Yes the individual would have exclusive ownership over his own person. So yes if you want to play your little word games then you are technically correct.

Nor is "anarcho-capitalism" a valid concept, since the essence of capitalism is the possession of property and the freedom to buy and sell, neither of which exists in any condition of anarchy.
Click to expand...

Um why do you need the state to own property and buy and sell said property?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And the courts, until the 16th Amendment, have always ruled that taxes in individual income are unconstitutional.

You could try reading your history sometime.
Click to expand...

There were income taxes long before the ratification of the 16th amendment.

The people who wrote the Constitution of the United States of America, and the state legislatures that ratified it.
Click to expand...

And who endowed them with that power? No one alive today. The social contract created by the Founders was not entered into you or myself voluntarily and is thus null and void.

Controlling national borders.

It's something governments are SUPPOSED to do.
Click to expand...

And what gives a gang of man the to forcefully steal from the individual? What you call tariffs on the governmental level is nothing more than racketeering.

You mean besides the fact that I wouldn't have to fill out thirty pages of BS forms every April? or that the government doesn't have first call on my wages?

I say that tariffs are better, using this standard, people without standards may FEEL differently.
Click to expand...

Theft is theft.

It's that border thang. Some people don't understand.
Click to expand...

And what the hell is the difference between the voluntary contractual agreement between two citizens of the same country and two citizens of different countries? Why does one imply the legitimization of theft by a gang of men and the other does not?

In some future millenia, there won't be borders, there won't be nations trying to steal from us. Then things will be different.

In the here and now, borders and the maintenance thereof, are essential.
Click to expand...

Why are they essential?

Borders, buddy. You're crossing the imaginary but very real line between two autonomous and sovereign states. That gives them the authority to regulate your commerce.
Click to expand...

What gave them that right? I never entered into any contractual agreement with any state or collective granting them control over the fruits of my labor. I as a human being am entitled to the inalienable right of self ownership which means I owe no good or service to ANYBODY!!!

Damn, boy. Pick one, anarchist or limited government. It can't be both, not with us that use words correctly.
Click to expand...

It is both. There are both minarchists and anarchists within the Libertarian party, the minarchists have given up on principle for the sake of elective pragmatism.

Uh, no.

The Libertarian Party is not an anarchist party. I've been a member for years, and the LP stands for limited government, not no government.
Click to expand...

The state and individual sovereignty are mutually exclusive concepts.

Ah, there's your level of competence talking now.
Click to expand...

You called me a fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom