Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Attention Comparison Shoppers!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 373648" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>I think there are as many types of libertarian as there are protestant denominations!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>It's another reason I've come to not believe in a libertarian party itself anymore but others feel otherwise obviously. When I speak of libertartian, I do refer in many ways t othe 18th centruy classical liberal tradition from which ironically the bedrock of paleo-liberal civil liberties and the economics of paleo-conservative share a common father. And there are overlaps between the 2 as manifested in the diverse backing of the Ron Paul effort. There will be libertarians who will back Nader. </p><p> </p><p>However, I also share a further tradition of anti-federalism in the Patrick Henry tradition in opposing the Constitution itself. The mandate at the time was not to create a Constitution but was to amend the Articles of Confederation in some problem areas. I tend to agree that we should have never formed a larger federalized nation, if you will, but rather maintain smaller indepentant societies that were self governed but bound together by free economic trade between us and the common connection of self defense. That said, at this point in time, a gov't that lived confined within the framework of the Constitution would ironically be a real blessing.<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p>That also speaks saddly from my POV of how far off course we have gotten and that was the fear of the anti-federalist of what would ulitmately happen in the end. I think we have to admit at this point that they got that one right!</p><p> </p><p>To boil it down, how can you set economic policy that works for everyone when in say Nancy Pelosi's district there is only about 30% to 35% property ownership and then in say former speaker Hastert's district, an over 70% property owenership. I saw this comparison elsewhere and consider a valid point. One is very urban and the other is I would say more rural but then we expect the Congress to set a policy that is fair and equitibal to all concerned and still address the specific small problem in asmall locale. We set national policy because of a local issue? Then we are shocked and outraged when Congressional policies not only fail but create unintended consequences that force Congress to constantly revisit and revist an issue and never see ultimate success. The bigger and further from the problem you get, the more variables come into play that adversely effect the outcome. How many of us have seen UPS set corp. policy because of some issue at a few of the larger hubs and this negatively impacts working life at so many smaller operations across the country. Maybe a closer to home example might make a better point. Now I'm waitng for one of you to ask me if I'm against large regional, national or even global corporations like say a UPS. I dare ya to ask. Double Dare ya!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>Large scale democracy, as beautiful as it sounds, as wonderful as the ideal may be IMHO will just ultimately never work and those who managed via power to control the pursestrings will benefit and then force the others out of power to pay for the burden. Our society in that vain has many victims in our wake to testify to that fact.</p><p> </p><p>JMHO</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 373648, member: 2189"] I think there are as many types of libertarian as there are protestant denominations! :happy-very::happy-very::happy-very: It's another reason I've come to not believe in a libertarian party itself anymore but others feel otherwise obviously. When I speak of libertartian, I do refer in many ways t othe 18th centruy classical liberal tradition from which ironically the bedrock of paleo-liberal civil liberties and the economics of paleo-conservative share a common father. And there are overlaps between the 2 as manifested in the diverse backing of the Ron Paul effort. There will be libertarians who will back Nader. However, I also share a further tradition of anti-federalism in the Patrick Henry tradition in opposing the Constitution itself. The mandate at the time was not to create a Constitution but was to amend the Articles of Confederation in some problem areas. I tend to agree that we should have never formed a larger federalized nation, if you will, but rather maintain smaller indepentant societies that were self governed but bound together by free economic trade between us and the common connection of self defense. That said, at this point in time, a gov't that lived confined within the framework of the Constitution would ironically be a real blessing.:happy-very: That also speaks saddly from my POV of how far off course we have gotten and that was the fear of the anti-federalist of what would ulitmately happen in the end. I think we have to admit at this point that they got that one right! To boil it down, how can you set economic policy that works for everyone when in say Nancy Pelosi's district there is only about 30% to 35% property ownership and then in say former speaker Hastert's district, an over 70% property owenership. I saw this comparison elsewhere and consider a valid point. One is very urban and the other is I would say more rural but then we expect the Congress to set a policy that is fair and equitibal to all concerned and still address the specific small problem in asmall locale. We set national policy because of a local issue? Then we are shocked and outraged when Congressional policies not only fail but create unintended consequences that force Congress to constantly revisit and revist an issue and never see ultimate success. The bigger and further from the problem you get, the more variables come into play that adversely effect the outcome. How many of us have seen UPS set corp. policy because of some issue at a few of the larger hubs and this negatively impacts working life at so many smaller operations across the country. Maybe a closer to home example might make a better point. Now I'm waitng for one of you to ask me if I'm against large regional, national or even global corporations like say a UPS. I dare ya to ask. Double Dare ya! :happy-very: Large scale democracy, as beautiful as it sounds, as wonderful as the ideal may be IMHO will just ultimately never work and those who managed via power to control the pursestrings will benefit and then force the others out of power to pay for the burden. Our society in that vain has many victims in our wake to testify to that fact. JMHO [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Attention Comparison Shoppers!
Top