View Poll Results: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 16.98%
  • Probably

    2 3.77%
  • Maybe

    8 15.09%
  • Probably not

    0 0%
  • No

    33 62.26%
  • Don't know

    1 1.89%
Page 12 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 344

Thread: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

  1. #111
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Galt -

    I will not ask you to provide numerical evidence of your assertion that



    On its face, it goes against every bit of information I have about the subject. But you are entitled to your beliefs and I strongly suspect it would make no difference to either of us either way.
    I'm not sure what is the major difference. You made the assertion, so I'll wait for you to back it up with examples and statistics. How, and in what ways, are corporations more powerful now than in the past? I suppose the multinational agreements and licensing procedures have created larger corporations, but I'm not sure I'm convinced that larger ultimately means more powerful. And I define power as having control over other people.

    Regarding the Federalist Papers: so what? The last time I looked the FP were very interesting historical writings that explained the thoughts of a few people who were part of the much larger group of Founding Fathers.
    The FP are a primary source for interpretation of the constitution. It helped pushed the ratification process, and it outlined the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government. You can't fully understand the constitution without reading the federalist papers.

    The tariff: I also strongly suspect that the parts of the economy you are most strongly concerned about and the parts of the economy that I am most concerned about are not at all the same. I also suspect based on your closing reference to the global economy that we would be miles apart on that issue also.
    As in, America is #1 and **** the rest of the world? That sort of economic nationalism served as the backbone of mercantilism and imperialism. Why not step into the 21st century of liberalized trade and global cooperation?

    I would have a tariff and it would work like this: any company that moves American jobs overseas is now free to sell those products anywhere overseas they want to sell them. I use "overseas" in the broadest sense and would include Mexico and other nations not really overseas at all. If those same products want ot be sold here, then we would have a tariff. I happen to love this country and the American people. I agree with Ross Perot when he predicted the 'giant sucking sound' of good paying manufacturing jobs leaving America if NAFTA were passed. I happen to reside in an area of the country which has been decimated by the economic treason of large corporations. Sorry if I do not welcome their foreign made products back on the shelves of Wal Mart. But I am inclined that way.
    Yes you are, just like the bastards who felt the same way legislated the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 which further exacerbated global trade and led to a deeper depression.

    My reference to the elastic clause was in part response to your offer to drop economic regulation.
    I said a bare minimum of regulations, which could be deemed necessary and constitutional given the elasticity clause. However, regulating the freedom of businesses to trade, associate, set prices, and form licensing agreements are not covered under the elasticity clause. You can't just use the elasticity clause to justify any and all expansion of government power. If it has nothing to do with the constitutional powers, or specifically the protection of the Bill of Rights, the elasticity clause is irrelevant.

  2. #112
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:20 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,728

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    from Galt

    The FP are a primary source for interpretation of the constitution.
    So what? Do they have the same standing before the Supreme Court as the actual language contained in the Constitution? NO. Case closed.


    Yes you are, just like the bastards who felt the same way legislated the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 which further exacerbated global trade and led to a deeper depression.
    News flash for Galt: the Smoot Hawley tariff happened 80 freakin years ago. Got that? it in no way shape or form disqualifies all tariffs now or in the future no more than one successful tariff in our history justifies all tariffs now or in the future. I do not think that is hard to comprehend.

    I said a bare minimum of regulations, which could be deemed necessary and constitutional given the elasticity clause. However, regulating the freedom of businesses to trade, associate, set prices, and form licensing agreements are not covered under the elasticity clause.
    You should take your argument before the US Supreme Court who has heard this before and decided it in favor of existing law which does many of the things you object to. It is settled law.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  3. #113
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    So what? Do they have the same standing before the Supreme Court as the actual language contained in the Constitution? NO. Case closed.
    The Constitution has no "standing" before any court anywhere, Perry Mason. Learn what terms of art mean before using them.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You should take your argument before the US Supreme Court who has heard this before and decided it in favor of existing law which does many of the things you object to. It is settled law.
    Is ≠ ought.

    There's hardly anything "settled" about the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's been a matter of controversy for the courts since day one.

  4. #114
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    [QUOTE=haymarket;1059090254]from Galt



    So what? Do they have the same standing before the Supreme Court as the actual language contained in the Constitution? NO. Case closed.
    Of course not, because it is not the formal constitution. Just like the various drafts that were made prior to the ratification of the constitution are not formally the constitution, but serve as a major tool for interpreting the original intent of the founders. The FP can almost be equaled to an instruction's manual.

    News flash for Galt: the Smoot Hawley tariff happened 80 freakin years ago. Got that? it in no way shape or form disqualifies all tariffs now or in the future no more than one successful tariff in our history justifies all tariffs now or in the future. I do not think that is hard to comprehend.
    Has there been some drastic change in the way a tariff can or will be implemented? What is the primary difference between a tariff in 1930 that deepens a global depression, and one in 2010 that hinders growth, damages productivity, kills job creation, and raises inflation?

    You should take your argument before the US Supreme Court who has heard this before and decided it in favor of existing law which does many of the things you object to. It is settled law.
    As you like to ask, so what? Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law, so what's your point? Can the precedence be overturned?

  5. #115
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:20 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,728

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Again, Galt your argument is not with me its with the decisions of Supreme Court on these issues. Whatever the Court said last is the legal word on this. And the last time I looked, many of things on your list that libertarians object to were argued before the Court and your interpretation lost.

    from galt

    What is the primary difference between a tariff in 1930 that deepens a global depression, and one in 2010 that hinders growth, damages productivity, kills job creation, and raises inflation?
    Now we are getting somewhere. I am talking about a tariff which protects and creates American jobs and encourages growth by the spending of all that income from American jobs. Not what you are talking about at all.

    from Coronado

    There's hardly anything "settled" about the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's been a matter of controversy for the courts since day one.
    A matter of controversy where? On the internet message boards? In libertarian circles? The US Supreme Court has decided these things in the past and the law is settled on those issues which Galt objects to. You can hope that new cases come forward in the future and you can also hope that the Court led by Chief Justice Roberts will break his promise to the US Senate and disturb and overrule long settled precendents.

    You can hope.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #116
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    from Coronado



    A matter of controversy where? On the internet message boards? In libertarian circles? The US Supreme Court has decided these things in the past and the law is settled on those issues which Galt objects to. You can hope that new cases come forward in the future and you can also hope that the Court led by Chief Justice Roberts will break his promise to the US Senate and disturb and overrule long settled precendents.

    You can hope.
    You really have no idea how the Supreme Court works, do you? "Settled law" isn't something the Court cares that much about when it has to do with the Consitution, a fact that they readily admit, and a fact that is obvious to all but the most obtuse and ignorant.

    But hey, don't let that stop you from displaying your ignorance all over the board. Please tell us all about how the Constitution has "standing" in a court of law. I'm dying to hear this particular foray into uncharted legal waters.

  7. #117
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Again, Galt your argument is not with me its with the decisions of Supreme Court on these issues. Whatever the Court said last is the legal word on this. And the last time I looked, many of things on your list that libertarians object to were argued before the Court and your interpretation lost.
    And so what? I know how the system works. But simply supporting the precedent because it stands as the current interpretation does not necessarily make it right. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would never have to overturn a single precedent.

    Now we are getting somewhere. I am talking about a tariff which protects and creates American jobs and encourages growth by the spending of all that income from American jobs. Not what you are talking about at all.
    That all sounds like empty rhetoric to me. Explain to me HOW tariffs protect and create American jobs while simultaneously encouraging growth from spending.

  8. #118
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:20 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,728

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    from Galt

    But simply supporting the precedent because it stands as the current interpretation does not necessarily make it right.
    And this is important in the scheme of things because .... because .... exactly why?

    This is so easy. If we do not allow companies to remove production and jobs from America without a tarriff to penalize then for bringing the products back her for sale, those companies will stay here and keep making those products with American jobs. Workers at those plants and factories support local businesses and those workers can support more businesses and so an and so on and so on and before you know it - growth has taken place and its right here. Either that or they can cease to exist or go overseas and pay the same anyways in the end. I believe few will opt for door #2 or even #3..

    Of course this is only important if you value Americans and their jobs. If you do not then export away overseas and damn any worker who gets in the way.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #119
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:20 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,728

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    from coronado

    You really have no idea how the Supreme Court works, do you? "Settled law" isn't something the Court cares that much about when it has to do with the Consitution, a fact that they readily admit, and a fact that is obvious to all but the most obtuse and ignorant.
    I am shocked. You having the nerve to call the last few SC appointees ignorant and obtuse.

    SEN. SPECTER [as read into the record by Sen. Feinstein]: “Judge Roberts, in your confirmation hearing for the circuit court you testified: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?”
    ROBERTS: “Well, beyond that. It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.“
    SPECTER: ”You went on to say then, ‘It’s a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision, so it has added precedental value.’“
    So I guess Senator Specter is ignorant and obtuse also.
    Last edited by haymarket; 11-08-10 at 08:37 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #120
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    from Galt

    And this is important in the scheme of things because .... because .... exactly why?
    Because we're not talking about jurisprudence; we're discussing an ethical form of government. Precedence is irrelevant. If precedence was all that mattered to you in this debate, then no precedence would ever be overturned, and 'separate but equal' would reign supreme.

    This is so easy. If we do not allow companies to remove production and jobs from America without a tarriff to penalize then for bringing the products back her for sale, those companies will stay here and keep making those products with American jobs. Workers at those plants and factories support local businesses and those workers can support more businesses and so an and so on and so on and before you know it - growth has taken place and its right here. Either that or they can cease to exist or go overseas and pay the same anyways in the end. I believe few will opt for door #2 or even #3..

    Of course this is only important if you value Americans and their jobs. If you do not then export away overseas and damn any worker who gets in the way.
    You didn't even respond effectively to the results of the Smoot-Hawley Act. If this logic were true, then we could simply isolate ourselves from the global market and our prosperity would rise ten-fold.

    Here's a quick link:
    ISIL -- Free Trade or Protectionism?

    Gotta Run!

Page 12 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •