The Federalist Papers were never abandoned. They were the arguments used in order to pass the constitution. You make a good distinction between classical liberals and libertarians. I am a classical liberal. But you are wrong re taxes and welfare.
One welfare in the 18th and 19th C was not conceived as it is today - and you know this as there wasn't a bureaucracy to transfer wealth from one set of people to another. I, for one, am less concerned about income transfer to poor people than I am about the micromanagement of people's lives through the IRS, zoning, "seat -belt" type of nanny-state laws. Re libertarians being unreasonable - I suppose you think that people saying we have a right to our body as far as abortion is concerned ("WAThe Federalist Papers were never abandoned. They were the arguments used in order to pass the constitution. You make a good distinction between classical liberals and libertarians. I am a classical liberal. But you are wrong re taxes and welfare.
One welfare in the 18th and 19th C was not conceived as it is today - and you know this as there wasn't a bureaucracy to transfer wealth from one set of people to another. I, for one, am less concerned about income transfer to poor people than I am about the micromanagement of people's lives through the IRS, zoning, "seat -belt" type of nanny-state laws. Re libertarians being unreasonable - I suppose you think that people saying we have a right to our body as far as abortion is concerned ("WAR ON WOMEN") and yet these same people saying that we don't have a right over our own body as far as drugs, or seatbelts is concerned. So a woman who can decide to terminate her fetus cannot decide whether or not to wear a seat-belt on the way to the clinic. Yup. Makes sense to me.
And, if you're rational, you would know that many people claim the mantle of being a "true" libertarian, or marxist, or muslim (or what have you) and that the positions espoused by these many "true believers" are often in conflict; when you factor in that generations go by and points of concern change you will see even more divergence.
But can there be anymore foolishness than the position that is "right to ones body" as far as abortion is concerned but no right to ones body as far as drugs or seat-belts are concerned?R ON WOMEN") and yet these same people saying that we don't have a right over our own body as far as drugs, or seatbelts is concerned. So a woman who can decide to terminate her fetus cannot decide whether or not to wear a seat-belt on the way to the clinic. Yup. Makes sense to me.
And, if you're rational, you would know that many people claim the mantle of being a "true" libertarian, or marxist, or muslim (or what have you) and that the positions espoused by these many "true believers" are often in conflict; when you factor in that generations go by and points of concern change you will see even more divergence.
But can there be anymore foolishness than the position that is "right to ones body" as far as abortion is concerned but no right to ones body as far as drugs or seat-belts are concerned?
and when they do well, and make millions you won't honor the work and foresight; you won't admit you were wrong and they were right but you will rant and rave about those EVIL corporations.
yes. What you want is to have each side trying to prevent encroachment of powers.
Interesting example though re states and refugees. This is not clearly a prerogative of the Executive Branch. This particular issue will (deservedly ) go to the courts.
And Congress does have a say in foreign affairs as far as regulation of commerce, treaties and the funding for wars are concerned (not to mention that the Declaration of War).
It might. Glad to hear of someone else concerned about an ever-growing government. I'm assuming you're voting for candidates who wants to (or at least says he wants to ) limit the scope and power of the government.
The government is not trying to serve the public good. Furthermore there isn't, nor can there ever be consensus of what is the public good. Do you prevent people from taking illegal drugs for their own good (and thus throw them in jail); do you prevent people from taking unapproved medical drugs (such as AZT or homeopathic cures)?
Re the EPA you have government favored industries getting subsidies; you have government picking winners and losers - and this entire process is NEVER done for the public good.
It's more accurate to think of big government as big business with police, courts and an army than it is to think of them as public servants doing the public good.
Read the Federalist Papers (among others) and you'll see that this government was founded by people who understood that governments can be a fearsome enemy to the people subject to its powers.
You're not showing intelligence and a grasp of the issue if you think that right-wing == theocracy. Especially if your definition of right-wing is everyone who is not left-wing.
It's the overreach of a bureaucracy that is infuriating, not that there is an agency that monitors pollution.
It's the self-righteous fools who think that Imperial Washington and an imperial presidency is the way to solve problems and to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers.
What is the difference between legitimate government expense and corporate welfare to you?
And - don't corporations sell food? So isn't feeding children corporate welfare? Or is corporate welfare just a slogan you fling out when you disagree with the expenditure?
I (congress / homeowner) grant you (executive branch / painter) the authority to choose which brush size and type you use to paint my apartment. I did not give you the authority to decide that my eating dead animal flesh was wrong and thus give you the authority to throw out the chicken, beef and fish from my refrigerator.
So I guess you think that the executive branch can do whatever it wants. If it assumes dictatorial power you would be fine with that? I suppose you would if it did what you thought was right.
These laws and regulations are the function of the legislative branch (congress) not the executive branch (president).
And, interestingly enough, many of the counties with the most registered guns have violent rates that equal Europe's. Once again it's not the possession of a piece of metal that causes crime. Just like possession of a pe.n!s doesn't cause ra pe.
They also claim you have a right to free speech. Do we? Hillary says we don't. (See her response on limiting free speech when it comes to insulting Islam) And many college students and faculty are doing their best to limit speech that they don't agree with.
Maybe the Republicans are correct about owning guns. (the right to self-defense was not delegated away)
Muslims are a race? There aren't white people in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan?
The problem is two-fold. Fascist fanatics who will kill others who don't agree with them and simping fools who think that if they're nice and quiet and respectful and kind - then they will be met with the same kindness.
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed;
if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may
come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Winston Churchill
Civilians - or not the primary target(s). Are bodyguards and affiliated soldiers part of the 96? I don't know. I'm not saying they are or not. I just would like more information.
For you to say 96 out of 100 then you obviously know the breakdown.
Slashdot Mirror
The Federalist Papers were never abandoned. They were the arguments used in order to pass the constitution. You make a good distinction between classical liberals and libertarians. I am a classical liberal. But you are wrong re taxes and welfare. One welfare in the 18th and 19th C was not conceived as it is today - and you know this as there wasn't a bureaucracy to transfer wealth from one set of people to another. I, for one, am less concerned about income transfer to poor people than I am about the micromanagement of people's lives through the IRS, zoning, "seat -belt" type of nanny-state laws. Re libertarians being unreasonable - I suppose you think that people saying we have a right to our body as far as abortion is concerned ("WAThe Federalist Papers were never abandoned. They were the arguments used in order to pass the constitution. You make a good distinction between classical liberals and libertarians. I am a classical liberal. But you are wrong re taxes and welfare. One welfare in the 18th and 19th C was not conceived as it is today - and you know this as there wasn't a bureaucracy to transfer wealth from one set of people to another. I, for one, am less concerned about income transfer to poor people than I am about the micromanagement of people's lives through the IRS, zoning, "seat -belt" type of nanny-state laws. Re libertarians being unreasonable - I suppose you think that people saying we have a right to our body as far as abortion is concerned ("WAR ON WOMEN") and yet these same people saying that we don't have a right over our own body as far as drugs, or seatbelts is concerned. So a woman who can decide to terminate her fetus cannot decide whether or not to wear a seat-belt on the way to the clinic. Yup. Makes sense to me. And, if you're rational, you would know that many people claim the mantle of being a "true" libertarian, or marxist, or muslim (or what have you) and that the positions espoused by these many "true believers" are often in conflict; when you factor in that generations go by and points of concern change you will see even more divergence. But can there be anymore foolishness than the position that is "right to ones body" as far as abortion is concerned but no right to ones body as far as drugs or seat-belts are concerned?R ON WOMEN") and yet these same people saying that we don't have a right over our own body as far as drugs, or seatbelts is concerned. So a woman who can decide to terminate her fetus cannot decide whether or not to wear a seat-belt on the way to the clinic. Yup. Makes sense to me. And, if you're rational, you would know that many people claim the mantle of being a "true" libertarian, or marxist, or muslim (or what have you) and that the positions espoused by these many "true believers" are often in conflict; when you factor in that generations go by and points of concern change you will see even more divergence. But can there be anymore foolishness than the position that is "right to ones body" as far as abortion is concerned but no right to ones body as far as drugs or seat-belts are concerned?
and when they do well, and make millions you won't honor the work and foresight; you won't admit you were wrong and they were right but you will rant and rave about those EVIL corporations.
yes. What you want is to have each side trying to prevent encroachment of powers.
Interesting example though re states and refugees. This is not clearly a prerogative of the Executive Branch. This particular issue will (deservedly ) go to the courts.
And Congress does have a say in foreign affairs as far as regulation of commerce, treaties and the funding for wars are concerned (not to mention that the Declaration of War).
It might. Glad to hear of someone else concerned about an ever-growing government. I'm assuming you're voting for candidates who wants to (or at least says he wants to ) limit the scope and power of the government.
It will work the same way 20 year prison terms have halted the drug trade.
There is a big difference between paying 3.50% for a transaction (much more if you're sending cash) and .035%
The government is not trying to serve the public good. Furthermore there isn't, nor can there ever be consensus of what is the public good. Do you prevent people from taking illegal drugs for their own good (and thus throw them in jail); do you prevent people from taking unapproved medical drugs (such as AZT or homeopathic cures)?
Re the EPA you have government favored industries getting subsidies; you have government picking winners and losers - and this entire process is NEVER done for the public good.
It's more accurate to think of big government as big business with police, courts and an army than it is to think of them as public servants doing the public good.
Read the Federalist Papers (among others) and you'll see that this government was founded by people who understood that governments can be a fearsome enemy to the people subject to its powers.
You're not showing intelligence and a grasp of the issue if you think that right-wing == theocracy. Especially if your definition of right-wing is everyone who is not left-wing.
It's the overreach of a bureaucracy that is infuriating, not that there is an agency that monitors pollution.
It's the self-righteous fools who think that Imperial Washington and an imperial presidency is the way to solve problems and to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers.
What is the difference between legitimate government expense and corporate welfare to you?
And - don't corporations sell food? So isn't feeding children corporate welfare? Or is corporate welfare just a slogan you fling out when you disagree with the expenditure?
If we were a rational society the age to receive social security would have already been raised to 70 or 72,
This Kurzweilian future shows that Social Security should not be the ponzi scheme it is now but instead be pooled individual retirement accounts.
lol.
You've read too much Robert Heinlein.
Execute the laws - not make them.
I (congress / homeowner) grant you (executive branch / painter) the authority to choose which brush size and type you use to paint my apartment. I did not give you the authority to decide that my eating dead animal flesh was wrong and thus give you the authority to throw out the chicken, beef and fish from my refrigerator.
So I guess you think that the executive branch can do whatever it wants. If it assumes dictatorial power you would be fine with that? I suppose you would if it did what you thought was right.
These laws and regulations are the function of the legislative branch (congress) not the executive branch (president).
Also a dig at people who believe that "X" is so because ....? I feel it's so.
College campuses are full of these "because I feel it's so."
Of course if it was legal one wouldn't be "helping" criminals now would we?
I guess you never heard about a monk and his pea plants then?
And, interestingly enough, many of the counties with the most registered guns have violent rates that equal Europe's. Once again it's not the possession of a piece of metal that causes crime. Just like possession of a pe.n!s doesn't cause ra pe.
So the refugees are regrouping? And then they'll return to Syria after they've caught their breath?
They also claim you have a right to free speech. Do we? Hillary says we don't. (See her response on limiting free speech when it comes to insulting Islam) And many college students and faculty are doing their best to limit speech that they don't agree with.
Maybe the Republicans are correct about owning guns. (the right to self-defense was not delegated away)
Except for those that do. And there have been 1000s from the US, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Spain that have.
.How about we stop subsidizing people from having babies they can't afford.
Muslims are a race? There aren't white people in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan?
The problem is two-fold. Fascist fanatics who will kill others who don't agree with them and simping fools who think that if they're nice and quiet and respectful and kind - then they will be met with the same kindness.
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed;
if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly;
you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.
There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Winston Churchill
So your against zoning laws too? Or are you saying a society can place limits on citizens but not on outsiders?
Civilians - or not the primary target(s). Are bodyguards and affiliated soldiers part of the 96? I don't know. I'm not saying they are or not. I just would like more information.
For you to say 96 out of 100 then you obviously know the breakdown.
Please share it with us. I would like to know.