Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

Saboteur said:

They were also aristocrats with slaves and almost sparked another revolution when they introduced taxes of their own.

Click to expand...

.....Yea, so?

from Galt

Our founding fathers were libertarians!

Click to expand...

except that the Founding Fathers had never heard the term.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History

The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[13] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[14][15]
The use of the word 'libertarian' to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[16][17][18] Hence libertarian has been used as a synonym for left-wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s.

Click to expand...

I do not blame you for attempting to claim that mantle. Its a clever political tactic to those who do not know better. I have no doubt that some of our FF may indeed have had some characteristics and beliefs that may be in sympathy with modern libertarians. I do not think anyone can say for sure how many.

Actually the Founding Fathers gathered in 1787 after the utter failure of the closest thing we had to a modern libertarian system - the Articles of Confederation. And they were a failure. I would guess that many modern American libertarians would be happier under the Articles and many of the provisions contained within that document than with the move to a strong central government and a Constitution which resulted in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18. In fact, one of the main criticisms of the Founding Fathers was that they produced the template for our government with no inclusion of the rights of the people. That does not sound in agreement with many modern libertarians.

Saboteur brings up a good point that you dismiss out of hand. If these libertarians in 1787 were so in favor of the rights of people they sure had a funny way of showing it with adopting a Constitution which permitted slavery. In addition, many themselves were slave owners including some of which could and did write the most lofty platitudes about rights and equality. Hypocrisy seemed to exist even then among those who some today want to identify as the liberty crowd.

haymarket said:

from Galt



except that the Founding Fathers had never heard the term.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I do not blame you for attempting to claim that mantle. Its a clever political tactic to those who do not know better. I have no doubt that some of our FF may indeed have had some characteristics and beliefs that may be in sympathy with modern libertarians. I do not think anyone can say for sure how many.

Actually the Founding Fathers gathered in 1787 after the utter failure of the closest thing we had to a modern libertarian system - the Articles of Confederation. And they were a failure. I would guess that many modern American libertarians would be happier under the Articles and many of the provisions contained within that document than with the move to a strong central government and a Constitution which resulted in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18. In fact, one of the main criticisms of the Founding Fathers was that they produced the template for our government with no inclusion of the rights of the people. That does not sound in agreement with many modern libertarians.

Saboteur brings up a good point that you dismiss out of hand. If these libertarians in 1787 were so in favor of the rights of people they sure had a funny way of showing it with adopting a Constitution which permitted slavery. In addition, many themselves were slave owners including some of which could and did write the most lofty platitudes about rights and equality. Hypocrisy seemed to exist even then among those who some today want to identify as the liberty crowd.

Click to expand...

a definition means nothing

the founders' beliefs were closely aligned with what is currently called libertarian or what I would call real liberals.

I realize hating the founders is necessary for those who reject the Constitution and the premises upon which this nation, and her greatness were founded on.

haymarket said:

except that the Founding Fathers had never heard the term.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not blame you for attempting to claim that mantle. Its a clever political tactic to those who do not know better.

I have no doubt that some of our FF may indeed have had some characteristics and beliefs that may be in sympathy with modern libertarians. I do not think anyone can say for sure how many.

Actually the Founding Fathers gathered in 1787 after the utter failure of the closest thing we had to a modern libertarian system - the Articles of Confederation.

Click to expand...

So, first you say that they weren't libertarians because they didn't self identify as such, despite the fact that you acknowledge that the term didn't exist at the time and then you admit that their first attempt at government was "the closest thing we had to a modern libertarian system."

Your arguments are utterly inconsistent.

And they were a failure. I would guess that many modern American libertarians would be happier under the Articles and many of the provisions contained within that document than with the move to a strong central government and a Constitution which resulted in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18.

Click to expand...

The Articles of Confederation had to be scrapped because they were too difficult to amend where necessary, not because of any sense that the general welfare of the people was somehow neglected. If the Articles had been as easy to amend as the current constitution to allow the federal government to levy necessary taxes they likely would not have created the constitution we have today.

In fact, one of the main criticisms of the Founding Fathers was that they produced the template for our government with no inclusion of the rights of the people. That does not sound in agreement with many modern libertarians.

Click to expand...

They included a Bill of Rights, remember?

Saboteur brings up a good point that you dismiss out of hand. If these libertarians in 1787 were so in favor of the rights of people they sure had a funny way of showing it with adopting a Constitution which permitted slavery.

Click to expand...

You're overlooking the fact that they didn't have any other option. A Constitution that abolished slavery would not have been ratified by enough states... it would have been an entirely fruitless endeavor and would have left the new country without an effective government-- they were working on a time table, they needed a government, and they needed to make certain compromises on the issue of slavery.

The fact is, they did what they could to marginalize the institution of slavery-- the 3/5 compromise for instance, was expressly designed to reduce the representation of slaveholding states in congress relative to free states.

In addition, many themselves were slave owners including some of which could and did write the most lofty platitudes about rights and equality. Hypocrisy seemed to exist even then among the liberty crowd.

Click to expand...

see above. Slavery was not abolished because it could not have been abolished at the time. The slaveholding states would not have accepted a federal government that did so. And although some of them owned slaves, those "lofty platitudes about rights and equality" eventually did form the basis of the movements that did lead to the abolition of slavery in America.

The concept of "libertarianism" as a governmental ideology was not to exist for another three-quarters of a century. The attempt of modern libertarians to hijack the Founding Fathers is based on two things

1) and attempt to score political points by attempting to "prove" that they are the real true "American ideology" and it is their ideology which we should return to today, and
2) it is intended to cast a negative light on much that libertarians object to that was not in the original Constitution as written by the same Founding Fathers. This then "legitimizes" the right wing attack on such things as Civil Rights laws, Social Security, government regulations and the like.

It is a clever attempt and a wise attempt if one if attempting to build a modern political movement and one has had dismal success in doing it to this date. Since much of libertarian writing is proselytizing in nature, this gives them , on the surface anyway, a powerful argument to use in the attempt to convert the masses.

However, one cannot claim that the Fathers were libertarians without claiming that those same libertarians believed in slavery. It is part and parcel of both the lives of many of the Founders and part and parcel of the document they produced. One can attempt to excuse why some had to surrender to the slave holding states, but how does one rationalize the idea that so called libertarians owned slaves as a matter of daily life?

However, one cannot claim that the Fathers were libertarians without claiming that those same libertarians believed in a strong central government over the weaker and far more localized system they already had.

However, one cannot claim that the Fathers were libertarians without claiming that those same libertarians had a very different belief in rights since they did not even include a Bill of Rights in their document.

Of course, there were very real and hard political and economic decisions made at the Constitutional Convention. That is part and parcel of the process. Of course, hard sacrifices had to be made and deals made and that resulted in compromise. And on the issue of slavery what was compromised was the freedom of a race of people. Is it a libertarian principle that one race can enslave another race and establish a strong central government to protect that right? Because that is exactly what happened. Or perhaps libertarian "principles" simply did not apply to people of color?

Please do not attempt to misconstrue my comments about the Articles to claim that i believe they were a libertarian system. What I said was that they already had a system in place that was closer in libertarianism than they one which they adopted to replace it. That is not an endorsement that the Articles were a libertarian system - only that parts of it were closer in that regard to the one they replaced it with.

But if one is indeed going to claim that the Articles of Confederation were part of a libertarian system, then one also has to admit they were a failure. Why you would want to claim a failure is a mystery to me. There is nothing inconsistent about what I wrote about the Articles unless you are intentionally and deliberately attempting to misrepresent my beliefs. But I hope I have cleared them up for you with further explanation.

/facepalm



......

ReverendHellh0und said:

/facepalm



......

Click to expand...

Can't you elaborate on this a little more? Why do you think he is wrong?

there is something of a fascination that some modern libertarians have with the failed Articles. Read this

A 21st Century Patriot’s Dream by Ron Holland

notice the conclusion and call to action

Now with knowledge of real history and Austrian economics today
My prayer is the sovereign citizens of the US will again have their say
To restore the Articles of Confederation should be our demand
That the patriot’s dream of our founding fathers will again cover our land

Click to expand...

So what exactly are modern libertarians attempting to claim as their own? Is it the failed Articles that some profess to love and want to restore? Or is it the Constitution which replaced it instituting a stronger central government and approved of slavery over a race of people?

And now I must go off and do my civic duty and sit on a jury. I hope to return later today and join in the discussion.

German guy said:

Can't you elaborate on this a little more? Why do you think he is wrong?

Click to expand...

Neither worth the time nor the effort. All his delusional points have been addressed including all his random conflicting ones. Feel free to review his last two days of posts and tell me what slecifically hasnt already been addressed.

TurtleDude said:

a definition means nothing

the founders' beliefs were closely aligned with what is currently called libertarian or what I would call real liberals.

I realize hating the founders is necessary for those who reject the Constitution and the premises upon which this nation, and her greatness were founded on.

Click to expand...

Federalist Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Federalist party was an American political party in the period 1792 to 1816, the era of the First Party System, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801. The party was formed by Alexander Hamilton, who, during George Washington's first term, built a network of supporters, largely urban bankers and businessmen, to support his fiscal policies. These supporters grew into the Federalist Party committed to a fiscally sound and nationalistic government. The United States' only Federalist president was John Adams; although George Washington was broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, he remained an independent his entire presidency. The Federalist policies called for a national bank, tariffs, and good relations with Britain as expressed in the Jay Treaty negotiated in 1794."

"On taking office in 1789 President Washington nominated New York lawyer Alexander Hamilton to the office of Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton wanted a strong national government with financial credibility. Hamilton proposed the ambitious Hamiltonian economic program that involved assumption of the state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War, creating a national debt and the means to pay it off, and setting up a national bank. James Madison, Hamilton's ally in the fight to ratify the United States Constitution, joined with Thomas Jefferson in opposing Hamilton's program."

Moderator's Warning:

Edited to comply with Fair-Use

Hmmm doesn't sound like there was much difference from those days to now. If you look at who had majority for the first few years, the real founders of this country (the voters) largly went with the Federalists which were probably more what you would call Socialists today. So really, big govenrment was popular from the beginning with the people.

I brought up this point

In fact, one of the main criticisms of the Founding Fathers was that they produced the template for our government with no inclusion of the rights of the people. That does not sound in agreement with many modern libertarians.

Click to expand...

other disagreed, posting this

They included a Bill of Rights, remember?

Click to expand...

That is simply not true. The Bill of Rights - Amendments #1 - 10, was not part of the original Constitution submitted to the states for ratification. The Bill of Rights came a couple of years later.

haymarket said:

I brought up this point




other disagreed, posting this


That is simply not true. The Bill of Rights - Amendments #1 - 10, was not part of the original Constitution submitted to the states for ratification. The Bill of Rights came a couple of years later.

Click to expand...

From the same article:


Federalist Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Intellectually, Federalists, while devoted to liberty held profoundly conservative views atuned to the American character. As Samuel Eliot Morison explained, They believed that liberty is inseparable from union, that men are essentially unequal, that vox populi [voice of the people] is seldom if ever vox Dei [the voice of God], and that sinister outside influences are busy undermining American integrity."

Sheesh

haymarket said:

from Galt



except that the Founding Fathers had never heard the term.

Click to expand...

No, back then it was known as "classical liberalism." I don't think classical liberals were calling themselves classical liberals, but they were probably calling themselves, "liberals." So, libertarians are really liberals (go figure!). It makes sense, since the etymological basis of liberalism is liberty.

I do not blame you for attempting to claim that mantle. Its a clever political tactic to those who do not know better. I have no doubt that some of our FF may indeed have had some characteristics and beliefs that may be in sympathy with modern libertarians. I do not think anyone can say for sure how many.

Click to expand...

I agree. Perhaps I should have prefaced it by saying many of our founding fathers were libertarians. Individuals like Hamilton and Adams were arguably not libertarians.

Actually the Founding Fathers gathered in 1787 after the utter failure of the closest thing we had to a modern libertarian system - the Articles of Confederation.

Click to expand...

Libertarianism is not one giant monolithic movement. It has many different interpretations. So one could argue that the constitution itself, and especially the Bill of Rights, were/are a modern libertarian system.

And they were a failure. I would guess that many modern American libertarians would be happier under the Articles and many of the provisions contained within that document than with the move to a strong central government and a Constitution which resulted in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18.

Click to expand...

That's not true. There are some libertarians who believe in total decentralization down to the local level, but they're more anarchial in nature. A minarchist libertarian would support the constitution, albeit with an emphasis on the value of equal liberty. The elasticity clause is irrelevant to this debate. The clause does not give the federal government the authority to expand its power, it merely gives the feds the authority to enact laws that help to execute those specific powers laid out in the constitution. Enacting laws to regulate INTER-STATE commerce is fine. Enacting laws to regulate individual bodily decisions is not ok.

In fact, one of the main criticisms of the Founding Fathers was that they produced the template for our government with no inclusion of the rights of the people. That does not sound in agreement with many modern libertarians.

Click to expand...

Who proposed the Bill of Rights? Barack Obama?

Saboteur brings up a good point that you dismiss out of hand. If these libertarians in 1787 were so in favor of the rights of people they sure had a funny way of showing it with adopting a Constitution which permitted slavery. In addition, many themselves were slave owners including some of which could and did write the most lofty platitudes about rights and equality. Hypocrisy seemed to exist even then among those who some today want to identify as the liberty crowd.

Click to expand...

I did not condone slavery by dismissing Saboteur's observation. The issue of slavery and the founding fathers is a huge debate. But ultimately what do you want me to say? I've already acknowledged that the founders were not perfect, and that slavery is absolutely anti-freedom. There is no argument that today, Libertarians support individual liberty for ALL citizens and all of people of the world, not just whites, not just men, not just the wealthy, not just Americans. EVERYONE is entitled to own their own bodies and their own minds. I would like to say more on this topic, but I don't have the time. If you'd like to me address anything further, please don't hesitate to ask.

In a way, it depends how Libertarian they are. If it is the more radical forms of libertarianism such as; anarcho-capitalism, free-market anarchism, minarchism, etc. then I would say it does enable some form of a totalitarian form of government. If there is no form of government and that just leaves private companies that control the police, military, health care, etc. with no laws to restrict them or public intervention then they can do whatever they want, then one of the companies will create a monopoly making that private company the sole authority of everything. they can fire you from your job on any grounds, control the police in any way, make the military fight in any war they want, they can enforce any laws they want. We pretty much would be living in complete dictatorship, the way the government in military dictatorships and single-party states work resembles the way a private company would work if it were the governing body.

Galt
I am glad to see you are no longer insisting that the Founding Fathers were all libertarians. I would say that some of them had certain libertarian tendencies. However, that does not make them libertarians as we know them today.

The issue of slavery and the founding fathers is a huge debate. But ultimately what do you want me to say? I've already acknowledged that the founders were not perfect, and that slavery is absolutely anti-freedom. There is no argument that today, Libertarians support individual liberty for ALL citizens and all of people of the world, not just whites, not just men, not just the wealthy, not just Americans.

Click to expand...

I do not see how people who prize liberty and freedom can participate in the ownership of slaves. It is such a contradiction that - in my opinion - it completely invalidates and negates any claim a person can make to being a lover of liberty or freedom. It goes beyond common political hypocrisy. And then to take the issue beyond mere ownership of another person and institutionalize it in the new constitution you are writing is a bridge too far. The very idea that someone can claim to cherish liberty and freedom while owning another human being is simply all the evidence needed to deny anyone the mantle of a freedom lover.

Perhaps you can offer your views on a related subject to your claim about libertarians today. It is no secret that modern libertarians in the USA find themselves on the opposite side of almost every issue that the Civil Rights community favors and advocates for. This includes the various Civil Rights laws of the Sixties, affirmative action and lots of other laws and programs that African Americans have supported and labored for as a group for all of my lifetime. But almost as a universal bloc, modern libertarians find reasons to oppose these.

Do you understand why many people who have no axe to grind against libertarianism see your comments as hollow regarding the libertarian love of freedom for all people?

As for the elastic clause - it is relevant. There is no shortage of libertarian opinion about it painting it to be the cause of many of the ills of 20th century government. The Supreme Court has issued many rulings using it as authority for Congress to pass many laws and create many programs that libertarians object to.

This clause was not a 20th century amendment but part of the document as written in 1787. I am sure you are going to tell me that the men in 1787 would not interpret it in the way that we have done for the last century and thus they would not have objected to it. You are entitled to that defense. Truthfully, it simply does not pass the smell test.

I do not have the references in front of me right now, but if I remember correctly even Patrick Henry himself foresaw a much different interpretation of the clause when he spoke before the Virginia legislature and campaigned against ratification. The idea that the clause could be used as it has been was very much a reality in the late 18th century.

But better minds than ours have discussed this with no resolution.

I enjoy discussing this with you. thank you.

haymarket said:

Galt
I am glad to see you are no longer insisting that the Founding Fathers were all libertarians. I would say that some of them had certain libertarian tendencies. However, that does not make them libertarians as we know them today.

Click to expand...

True. I would argue that they’re closer to “libertarian” than they are to “republican” or “democrat.”

I do not see how people who prize liberty and freedom can participate in the ownership of slaves.

Click to expand...

That was the custom of the day. Again, the founders were not perfect in the least. But compared to their contemporaries, they were far superior. As you may know, the founders were quite conflicted over this issue, and T.J. himself wrote the abolishment of slavery in the first draft (he was also instrumental in banning the importation of slaves, first as a Virginia legislator and later as president). Also, Frederick Douglass advocated the ratification of the constitution with the compromise of keeping slavery intact in the South, for the alternative would be two different competing nations (and Douglass also feared that the Confederate South would expand their slavery empire to the far southern tip of South America).

It is such a contradiction that - in my opinion - it completely invalidates and negates any claim a person can make to being a lover of liberty or freedom.

Click to expand...

Are you KIDDING?! The way to oppose slavery is to oppose the idea of liberty? Is that what you’re saying?

It goes beyond common political hypocrisy. And then to take the issue beyond mere ownership of another person and institutionalize it in the new constitution you are writing is a bridge too far.

Click to expand...

Are you talking to me or about the founders? Again, you don’t have to hate the founders and everything they stood for because they made some very bad decisions regarding slavery. Do you hate FDR completely because of his Executive Order 9066? Do you hate Gandhi for beating his wife or Barack Obama for allowing the outsourcing of torture? We can’t make excuses for the founders, but we also can’t totally condemn them for they did lay the groundwork for this free nation.

The very idea that someone can claim to cherish liberty and freedom while owning another human being is simply all the evidence needed to deny anyone the mantle of a freedom lover.

Click to expand...

In 1776, not many governments were willing to let you practice your own religion, or to speak freely or to assemble peaceably to make your grievances known without decapitation, or many other liberties you seem to take for granted.

Perhaps you can offer your views on a related subject to your claim about libertarians today. It is no secret that modern libertarians in the USA find themselves on the opposite side of almost every issue that the Civil Rights community favors and advocates for.

Click to expand...

Bull****! That is a lie. If you’re talking about Rand Paul’s not-so-distant controversy regarding his civil rights law comment, it was specifically in regards to private business. Paul stated he would personally boycott any and all private businesses that refused service based on color, but that the federal government had no authority to tell individual businessmen who they could and could not conduct business with. Do you ever walk into a restaurant or store and see a sign that says: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”? Do you believe such a right shouldn’t exist? The idea of free trade is that you are free to trade with whomever you wish to trade with. It is not the role of government to force businesses to service everyone, regardless of circumstances. And this dealt strictly with certain parts of a single title within the historic legislation. ALL other titles of the act, Paul supported.

This includes the various Civil Rights laws of the Sixties, affirmative action and lots of other laws and programs that African Americans have supported and labored for as a group for all of my lifetime. But almost as a universal bloc, modern libertarians find reasons to oppose these.

Click to expand...

Bringing up affirmative action into the debate is really hurting your argument. Affirmative Action is opposed by lots of people, not just libertarians. Many liberals, blacks, and other Americans oppose Affirmative Action for its unconstitutionality and political privileging. However, let’s go back to civil rights and race relations.

Would you care to look back before the civil rights law passed, and examine the harsh reality of prejudism and KKK activism that plagued society in the early 20th century? Who was the progressive, liberal president that praised A Birth of a Nation and said it was like writing history with lightning? Woodrow Wilson. On the other hand, which U.S. president from the 20th century could be most closely identified with free-market libertarians? Obviously, it was Calvin Coolidge. Please read this little snippet from Wikipedia about his civil rights record: Calvin Coolidge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

REMEMBER the time period. Coolidge openly supported civil rights for African-Americans and Catholics in the 1920s! Politicians wouldn’t have the guts to do that until way later, arguably the mid 1950s. He also granted full citizenship to Native Americans while permitting them to retain tribal land and cultural rights. He also championed for anti-lynching legislation, which was ultimately shut down by congress. Say what you want about his economic policy, Coolidge (one of a libertarian’s favorite U.S. presidents, alongside Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, and Cleveland) was a fighter for civil rights.

Do you understand why many people who have no axe to grind against libertarianism see your comments as hollow regarding the libertarian love of freedom for all people?

Click to expand...

Was it just because I called the founders libertarians? Otherwise, I don’t understand how one might see a libertarian love of freedom for all people as hollow. Libertarians are the only ones who actually follow through with their principles. Libertarians do not compromise on the issue of liberty, for it is the basis of the entire movement. There are no exemptions to liberty.

Here are some more points in my favor:

I’ve already mentioned that FDR was bigot who imprisoned innocent civilians without just cause.

Jim Crow laws, black codes, and other legislation that violated people’s civil rights were handed down by government officials, NOT by individual businessmen. Businesses were at the forefront of change. Who was it that was offering blacks first-class seats on trains, because the company knew there was profit to be made? The first integrated schools were privately-run!

As for the elastic clause - it is relevant. There is no shortage of libertarian opinion about it painting it to be the cause of many of the ills of 20th century government. The Supreme Court has issued many rulings using it as authority for Congress to pass many laws and create many programs that libertarians object to.

Click to expand...

It’s gone both ways. Precedence doesn’t sway me either way. The precedence is only as stable as the logic used to interpret the law. If precedence were so important, we’d still be stuck with segregation.

This clause was not a 20th century amendment but part of the document as written in 1787. I am sure you are going to tell me that the men in 1787 would not interpret it in the way that we have done for the last century and thus they would not have objected to it. You are entitled to that defense. Truthfully, it simply does not pass the smell test.

Click to expand...

No, but the elastic clause DOES have to do with something regarding the specific governmental powers drawn out in the constitution. If politicians decide to give the government powers it is deemed not to have by the constitution, then no amount of interpreting the elasticity clause will justify the new expansion in power. How does the elasticity clause justify drug prohibition or prohibition against prostitution? How does it justify a national healthcare system?

I enjoy discussing this with you. thank you.

Click to expand...

I have as well. Thank you.

from El Galt on slavery at the time of the writing of the US Constitution

That was the custom of the day.

Click to expand...

Many nations had already abolished slavery or the slave trade. That list included
Sweeden, Japan, Poland, Lithuania, Chile, Japan, Russia, Portugal and Scotland among others. I would hardly call that the custom of the day.

I offered this on the idea of lovers of liberty allowing slavery to be placed in the new Constitution

It is such a contradiction that - in my opinion - it completely invalidates and negates any claim a person can make to being a lover of liberty or freedom.

the response for Galt

Are you KIDDING?! The way to oppose slavery is to oppose the idea of liberty? Is that what you’re saying?

Click to expand...

No. I am not kidding. The want to advance liberty is not on the backs of a race of people being held in a condition of slavery. To write lofty statements about the equality of man and the equality of all mankind while personally owning slaves and enshrining a system of slavery into the national Constitution is a serious contradiction that goes far beyond mere political hypocrisy. It seriously calls into question the merit of such a label as 'lover of freedom' or 'lover of liberty' and demonstrates why it is hollow at best.

It is not BS that most modern libertarians have found themselves on the opposite side of a long list of issues advocated by African Americans and the American civil rights community. And I refer to much much more than a single law about a business practice. If you take almost every issue regarding African Americans and the effort to attain full equality, libertarians have been in lockstock with the most right wing of conservatives on them. They certainly come up with loftier reasons then the Bull Conners and George Wallaces of the world - but in the end they come down on the same side as that crowd.

Affirmative action is but a single item on a much larger list which would include almost every Civil Rights Law from the Sixties through today, laws passed to aid African Americans, and programs aimed at helping them. You mention Ron Paul and I cannot help but think of this hypocrisy in refusing to allocate any monies for medals for Rosa Parks and others claiming there is not any Constitutional language for that expenditure while co-sponsoring and voting for striking of coins to raise money for a private organization - the Boy Scouts at the same time. And there is not language in the US Constitution to allow the printing of coins to raise extra money for a private organization. But he found a way to do it.

I will grant you the point that one can oppose some affirmative actions programs without being a racist or even a conservative on civil rights. Yes, that is true and liberals also find reasons to oppose it. However, there is a very extensive list of civil rights laws and programs that are opposed by libertarians that go far beyond affirmative action and I believe we both know that.

How does the elasticity clause justify drug prohibition or prohibition against prostitution? How does it justify a national healthcare system?

Click to expand...

The US Supreme Court has heard those arguments and has held that the use of Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18 does indeed come into play and permit these things. Rather than me simply parrot the Court - and do a far less extensive and thorough job in the task - I would recommend that if you want to know those answers you refer to the specific controversy and the SC ruling that approved the programs that you are opposed to. Your objections have been dealt with in the Court for a long time now.

But we are going astray from the main point here.

The people who wrote the US Constitution were complex men who harbored a variety of ideologies and opinions about government and other issues. I have no doubt that some of them did harbor ideas that would be in sync with some ideas of some modern libertarians. They also possessed ideas which greatly put them out of sync with the beliefs of modern libertarians - if we take those beliefs at face value. Even so, that does not make them libertarians. That does not make the Constitution a libertarian document. And it certainly does not give license to modern libertarians to claim it as a libertarian work product or any sort of a validation of their current belief system.

Will the 5 folks that voted yes in this poll please cite any examples of libertarianism enabling facsism?


My money is on not getting a response to this query.

ReverendHellh0und said:

Will the 5 folks that voted yes in this poll please cite any examples of libertarianism enabling facsism?


My money is on not getting a response to this query.

Click to expand...

This thread has already run 25 pages. A look through ONLY the first five pages show that the following posts speak to your challenge and have already put forth their ideas on this:

posts #11, 15, 18, 21, 23, 30, 34, 40, 44

and that is only in five pages. feel free to examine the last 20. As i am sure you are well aware, threads with a longer shelf life often begin to explore other areas of the topic and branch off. This thread is no different.

The thread is more of a speculative one that applies to future possible developments rather than a "has this happened in the past" sort of thread. For my two cents, i would prefer that a discussion revolve around modern libertarianism leading us down The Road to Serfdom rather than a use of the loaded word fascism..... although I do understand what the opening thread and the writer of it meant.

haymarket said:

This thread has already run 25 pages. A look through ONLY the first five pages show that the following posts speak to your challenge and have already put forth their ideas on this:

posts #11, 15, 18, 21, 23, 30, 34, 40, 44

Click to expand...

So the answer is no. there is now examples of libertarians enabling fascism from the 5 of you who voted yes. thank you for your concession.

and that is only in five pages. feel free to examine the last 20. As i am sure you are well aware, threads with a longer shelf life often begin to explore other areas of the topic and branch off. This thread is no different.

The thread is more of a speculative one that applies to future possible developments rather than a "has this happened in the past" sort of thread. For my two cents, i would prefer that a discussion revolve around modern libertarianism leading us down The Road to Serfdom rather than a use of the loaded word fascism..... although I do understand what the opening thread and the writer of it meant.

Click to expand...

Oh so its conjecture and speculation about a philosophy and political ideology you really do not understand. Gotcha.

haymarket said:

The Road to Serfdom

Click to expand...

Summarize "The Road to Serfdom" as actually spelled out by its author. Can you? You keep using that phrase as though you think it's a zinger.

ReverendHellh0und said:

So the answer is no. there is now examples of libertarians enabling fascism from the 5 of you who voted yes. thank you for your concession.





Oh so its conjecture and speculation about a philosophy and political ideology you really do not understand. Gotcha.

Click to expand...

Sorry Rev but the problem here is your intentional misreading of the opening post. Here is what the opening post asks

Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism by making institutions weak and vulnerable to private violence?

Click to expand...

You are taking to mean "HAVE liber..... etc....." You want proof that it has happened when that is not what the thread is asking. Good reading skills are always an asset in life.

Harshaw said:

Summarize "The Road to Serfdom" as actually spelled out by its author. Can you? You keep using that phrase as though you think it's a zinger.

Click to expand...

Harshaw - when I use the phrase "the Road to Serfdom" I a clearly using it in the context that libertarianism will lead to an existence of many people that will resemble the horrid state of serfdom. Was than unclear to you? I hope that clears it up.

haymarket said:

Sorry Rev but the problem here is your intentional misreading of the opening post. Here is what the opening post asks



You are taking to mean "HAVE liber..... etc....." You want proof that it has happened when that is not what the thread is asking. Good reading skills are always an asset in life.

Click to expand...

If you answer yes, you need to provide examples. I'd retort about your reading skills, but you seem to whine alot when someone throws your behavior back in your face. :shrug:

Now reading that phrase, if you answered "yes" it does "enable fascism", you need to cite real world examples.

Can you do this? yes or no?

haymarket said:

Harshaw - when I use the phrase "the Road to Serfdom" I a clearly using it in the context that libertarianism will lead to an existence of many people that will resemble the horrid state of serfdom. Was than unclear to you? I hope that clears it up.

Click to expand...

How?

......