A Question For Libertarians

[Eyeron]

How do you intend on keeping government from expanding its powers? There are a lot of governmental forms out there, so let's keep it to the American one.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'll just add my $0.02 in on this one, because it seems to me there is an inherent contradiction in the system - that is, how does a group who claims to be all about smaller government square that with taking over the government?

 

[FlamingMoe]

How do you intend on keeping government from expanding its powers? There are a lot of governmental forms out there, so let's keep it to the American one.

Not sure it's possible, especially when the people fail to elect consistently libertarian candidates. It wouldn't be so bad if the resulting intrusive government was only applied to the imbeciles who voted it into office, but we have to suffer with its excesses as well.

I'll just add my $0.02 in on this one, because it seems to me there is an inherent contradiction in the system - that is, how does a group who claims to be all about smaller government square that with taking over the government?

Since smaller government is not the same thing as no government, please do explain the contradiction.

 

[daenku32]

Not sure it's possible, especially when the people fail to elect consistently libertarian candidates. It wouldn't be so bad if the resulting intrusive government was only applied to the imbeciles who voted it into office, but we have to suffer with its excesses as well.

So free elections of government officials is a non-workable form of Libertarian governance? You know, all us imbeciles voting?

 

[FlamingMoe]

So free elections of government officials is a non-workable form of Libertarian governance? You know, all us imbeciles voting?

Nice strawman.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You know, all us imbeciles voting?

Speak for yourself.

 

[drkitten]

Not sure it's possible, especially when the people fail to elect consistently libertarian candidates.

Sure it's possible, just like it was possible to limit the government's ability to sustain and enforce slavery.

Just write new rules. In many cases, you can write new laws -- in other cases, you may need to amend the Constitution. Often, it would be sufficient simply to repeal the existing laws. You don't like the Environmental Protection Agency? Simply repeal the enabling legislation that created it (which I believe goes under the formal name of "REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF 1970").

Of course, you'll find that most of us like drinking non-poisonous water, so you'll have a hard time pushing that through any popularly-elected legislature.

The real problem is that us "imbeciles" who elect non-Libertarian representatives have wants, too; Just as you "have to suffer with [the legislature's] excesses" when we decide we want to be able to breathe, eat, and drink in relative safety, we have to suffer when you decide on principle that we shouldn't be able to do that.

You think I don't have the right to tell you not to pollute the watershed. I think you don't have the right to pollute it in the first place. If not wanting to die of cancer caused by your unwillingness to pay to store your chemicals safely is is imbecility, then I'm happy being an imbecile.

 

[Alt+F4]

how does a group who claims to be all about smaller government square that with taking over the government?

They can't. Libertarian is largely a philosophy, not a workable form of government. The hardcore ones though, want to live on a patform in the middle of the ocean so they can build their libertarian utopia from scratch.

 

[drkitten]

They can't. Libertarian is largely a philosophy, not a workable form of government.

This isn't quite true.

It's certainly possible to establish/rewrite the rules of government to create some sort of Libertopian ideal. It's also demonstrably true that the governing structure of the United States has changed radically over the past two centuries, primarily in the direction of a more powerful and more centralized government; a lot of the Founding Fathers would be appalled at some of the things that the government has now assumed responsibility for.

As a simple example, I don't think that they would be impressed by the existence of federal safety standards for automobiles. They would have preferred that every state have its own set of standards for horse-drawn wagons if necessary. But, of course, they also didn't envision a world where all "wagons" were made in a few factories outside of Detroit, Michigan, and were shipped all over the place. If business happens at a national level (which is relatively new), so typically must regulation -- which is why the Fed was explicitly given the power to regulate interstate commerce.

 

[CaptainManacles]

I'll just add my $0.02 in on this one, because it seems to me there is an inherent contradiction in the system - that is, how does a group who claims to be all about smaller government square that with taking over the government?

I would also like to hear why you see this as a contradiction, I don't get it.

 

[drkitten]

I would also like to hear why you see this as a contradiction, I don't get it.

It's the same contradiction as it would be if a lifelong advocate for rail transportation decided to take a job as the head of Ford Motor Company.

 

[DDWW]

No rules needed if the populace themselves, the owners of the government, could abstain from the opiate of having their votes bought with their own money.

An almost impossible task.

DDWW

 

[KingMerv00]

I would also like to hear why you see this as a contradiction, I don't get it.

I don't see it either and I'm not a Libertarian. They see the American govenment as a car with a drunk in control. Would it be a contradiction to say they want to take the wheel instead of being a passenger?

 

[CaptainManacles]

It's the same contradiction as it would be if a lifelong advocate for rail transportation decided to take a job as the head of Ford Motor Company.

No, it'd be more analogous if a lifelong advocate for Ford Motor Company shrinking in order to be more efficient took a job as the head of Ford Motor Company.

How can someone think that's a contradiction? That's absurd to the point of childishness.

 

[Beerina]

So free elections of government officials is a non-workable form of Libertarian governance? You know, all us imbeciles voting?

The Founding Fathers were well-aware of the ability of demagogues to lead people on crusades, taking advantage of the fickle blowing winds of passion. Hence the checks and balances, with supermajorities required to change the basic rules of the Constitution. Most importantly, our government does not presume to have all powers unless the Constitution says "No". Rather, the Constitution creates the government, and specifically authorized it to do certain things, and none others.

Because the Founding Fathers knew that "all us imbeciles voting" would, indeed, vote for the power hungry. So limit what the power hungry can do with the power.

 

[daenku32]

Rather, the Constitution creates the government, and specifically authorized it to do certain things, and none others.

How's that working out for you? I think the Libertarians should take their stuff to the courts more often. Surely these productive members of the society have the resources since us masses haven't confiscated it all yet.

 

[KingMerv00]

The Founding Fathers were well-aware of the ability of demagogues to lead people on crusades, taking advantage of the fickle blowing winds of passion. Hence the checks and balances, with supermajorities required to change the basic rules of the Constitution. Most importantly, our government does not presume to have all powers unless the Constitution says "No". Rather, the Constitution creates the government, and specifically authorized it to do certain things, and none others.

Because the Founding Fathers knew that "all us imbeciles voting" would, indeed, vote for the power hungry. So limit what the power hungry can do with the power.

I don't think the government has ever been run like that. If it was, it died a long time ago.

 

[CaptainManacles]

I don't think the government has ever been run like that. If it was, it died a long time ago.

I theory it is, that's why they still come up with some kind of weird unbelievable constitutional justification for the **** they do, like the commerce clause, even if no sane person could argue with a straight face that it applies.