When will American's embrace Libertarian views? (Page 4)

I agree completely

Our country won't be overrun by the 'ignorant'-it will be overrun by the individuals who either fail to recognize, or simply don't care, that they are, in fact, THIEVES!  All the PollyAnna ideas, Free Trade, Capitalism, Fair, effective Democracy etc etc. are predicated on the notion that individuals will PLAY FAIR. That Individuals won't cheat, steal, lie.  But individuals DO lie, cheat, steal.  My 'hope' (my dream) is that the "collective" can influence/coherce the individual to play fair.   The best written, most well intentioned policy decision amounts to absolute s##t the very second an individual breaks the rules.  The problem isn't that we are a corrupt nation with a non-functioning form of govt.  The problem is that we are a corrupt PEOPLE with a system of govt. being consumed by liars, crooks and perverts.   Let's fix THAT!

I agree, Washington is an easy target, but it's the People that put them there. We get what we deserve.

But where is the accountability with the collective? I understand that people don't always have it, but how will that change with the collective?

Liberals like to rant about corporations as if they are some evil Borg entity consuming all that lays before them... I don't. But I do understand, that at some point, corporations take on a life of their own. They do what is best for them, without necessarily regard to others. And it is great to say boycott them and hit them in the pocket book... but how exactly do you boycott Johnson and Johnson... or Exxon/Mobil, of Chase/BOA/JP Morgan for that matter. Too big to fail, and too big to reign in.

I feel government is that now. Too big to reign in. Not some evil tyrannical entity acting as one... just a crap load of agencies all doing what is best for them and not others... too big to control.

So then how does that change with "the collective" socialist mentality? I'm not using "socialist" as a dirty word, but as an accurate political term. When does the collective become too big to control, and tramples on the rights of the individual?

I believe at the core the individual trumps the collective. That is true freedom. And no, the individual does not trump what is fair for others. But an individual can't trump another's individual right. That's where it ends. If we limit the size of government, we limit the size of corporations, and we limit the size of "group think", then it seems to me we get to a place that is pretty nice to live. Obviously that is my personal view of Utopia"... we all have our perfect pie and want a slice... but it seems to me that is where the most freedom is.

So, how does it 'end'?  Where is the punishment? And who exacts it?  The individual?  Or a 'collective' legal system.  IMO This is where the "individual" v. "collective" argument falls short.  Unless you live on an island unto yourself, then the individual rights of all your family, neighbors, friends etc get an equal voice in every decision, ever made....every.. single.. one.  Can you say 'chaos'. 

Mankind was formed in tribes.  Hierarchy and peers and majorities ruled the day.   The framers of the constitution got it wrong  IMO.  They crafted our country when they were bitter and resentful and short sighted.  It's NOT about individual rights and liberties.  And we've spent nearly 250 yrs. chasing our tails; living proof that the more RIGHTS you give an individual-the more infringed the rights of their neighbors become.  I don't know the answer, or if there IS an 'answer'.  But we'd better learn to all just get along.

OK, so WOW. And I'm not at all being a smart Alec. Help me understand. I seriously want to know. Because this is the front line of the debate these days...

Individual rights are not a set of arbitrary opinions and wish lists that keeps anything from happening. It is a set of rights laid out in the constitution. Ones that can be amended if everyone agrees. If there is conflict, it goes to SCOTUS. I'm sorry, but that is kind of a big deal. That no government or group can take from me  my Flying Spaghetti Monster given rights. I like it that way.

And Jeff I'm genuinely asking... what is it you see not working in our society that individual freedoms are standing in the way of? What impediment are they causing that is holding us back from true greatness?

Here is something I do not really get or have an answer for... all the great Empires have collapsed... but perhaps that wasn't so much the government as it was the people becoming disconnected from community. Where is that point when you see people but have zero connection to them? In a village, or small town... or perhaps even in a big one way back when you were closer connected to life... you depended on your neighbors, on the community. But then things get so big, there just isn't that connection.

I mean I don't know the people in my city. I can see American's suffer in New York on 9/11 and feel a connection for my countryman, but as a whole... who care's about New York? Who the heck cares about Colorado Springs? How can we possibly care about 7 billion people on the planet? I have wondered if the majority of our problems are simply from the disconnect that happens, and not so much the nuts and bolts of liberal v conservatives... or Bloods v Crips.

'constitution=law of the land'  That's a GIVEN!   My statement was questioning the origins of the document-NOT it's current existence.  I'm in Law Enforcement, so it's kinda a big deal to me, too.   Many folks who wrap themselves up too tight in the constitution, however, develop a rather short memory for exactly what all is going on in there.   Drug Use, Abortion, Gun Rights, Voting Rights, Equal Rights-they're all covered in there.  Yet almost every day-on this very forum someone states how they would simply 'circument' a current law.  Or simple disregard any laws that may be pending (think 2A here).

There is no such thing as an Individual Freedom.  There are laws, rules and regulations that govern our actions; that tell us what IS and what IS NOT acceptable behavior.   That's not freedom-that's simply following someone else's law.  Laws created, bargained, and passed by a Collective.  

OK, that I understand. But not really...

The Constitution is just some piece of paper, and the only power it has is what we give it. Yes, it is laws... but WE agree it is a set of individual rights, and limits to federal power... not to mention all the other stuff on how to run the government. So sure... that's what we have. But it most certainly protects my individual rights, just ask SCOTUS.

But what I am asking about.. I apologizing if that is not what you are talking about... is the discussion these days of "collective rights" are more important to individual rights. And that the collective can trump the individual (mob rule to me). That's fine if that's what you want, but it isn't what we have.

For example... back ground checks... we decided we want prohibited people... that actually can't happen... because a felon has rights. We say he forfeited them... but you can't actually do that... never the less, that's what we got, and back ground checks do not in any way infringe upon my RTBA. So society get's a measure of safety, but my RTBA is intact.

Taking all guns... the collective (51%) decides that they don't want them. You can't do that, it infringes on my RTBA. Now the collective can indeed repeal the 2A. The collective at that point only needs a 2/3 majority, and then we can have the country we want with no guns. But as it stands... no.

We could get bogged down in what meets the 1st example, and what can be twisted to meet the 2nd, but the fact remains, I do have rights, and I don't want the mob taking them. And the SCOTUS says they can't. There is a lot of those examples today with safety, environment, and so on... yet they still have to work within the frame work of our constitution.

I do not see that as chaos. I do not see that as the Founders getting it wrong. I also don't see how it would be so much better, or the benefits you think we would have if it was different. So what would the benefits be? Did I just read you wrong? What issues would you see working better?

Greed isn't necessarily a good word for it, because that gets thrown around in a lot of ways.  Most of my extended family thinks I'm the greediest person on earth, but it's because I don't give money where they WANT me to give money.  As in, I don't give it to them.  However, I give a huge chunk of what I earn to charity and do a lot of other things with my time, but that's irrelevant to most because I am choosing where to spend my money and the collective (aka government) isn't.

I also don't think we should be forced to accept others for who they are.  What if somebody's a serial killer, I'm not going to accept him.  What if somebody's a wife beater, I'm not going to accept him.  We have to have a level of acceptable behavior that doesn't infringe on individual rights or the rights of others but we can't just accept everything because that's anarchy.

I do agree that we need a smaller government. 

I think you're mixing apples and dinosaurs.

There are two distinctly different things that you're talking about.  Every collection of people across the globe have a set of rules or laws that they live by.  Sometimes those laws are put forth in an oppressive way (think dictator), or a religious way (think theocracy) and then there's this thing called democracy where the people elect representatives who are "supposed" to represent their constituents to create laws based on everyone's collective input.  This system is supposed to give everyone an equal say in the laws of the land, so New York representatives aren't putting in place laws for Nebraskans and vice versa.

However, our founding fathers recognized that people who are put in power have throughout history tended to shift more towards the "dictator" route where they oppressively put laws in place that aren't truly what the "collective" wants or needs.  So, they guaranteed you, me, and even Powerman (debatable) individual rights that shall not be infringed.  These individual rights set limits as to what laws the representatives are allowed to put in place and act as a balancing mechanism.  The 2nd Amendment was put in place for what I call the ultimate balancing mechanism because ultimately he who has the guns will eventually get to dictate to those who don't.

So, in essence we already have something similar to what I think you're advocating when it comes to our laws.
As for individual rights I won't go so far as to say they're, but if we were to eliminate our individual rights and allow the government to determine what individuals can do I think you wouldn't be to accepting of that.

Don't forget, the "collective" was very religious when our country was founded.  If there were no individual rights then your kids would likely be going to religious indoctrination schools and the president would be head of the church.  We'd probably be a full on theocracy, to be honest if there weren't individual rights.

I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, but I'm trying to give an example of why we have to have individual rights.  The collective will eb and flow over time.

I thought you might be referring to the gay issue on the tolerance piece, but I didn't want to assume. 

I also think the gay issue is a great example for both your post and Jeff's.  Back in the day the "collective" society didn't approve of same sex relationships so they didn't allow the civil laws to reflect them in marriage as well as other legal capacities.  However, as the "collective" mentality has changed for whatever reason and good or bad the civil laws are starting to reflect the will of the collective and many states are allowing for same sex marriages.  Obviously it's still a hot button issue and it's not the same everywhere, but I don't think anyone's ever accused our system of being fast.  Also, these are not individual rights that are changing they are civil laws that are changing.

I obviously have personal thoughts and feelings about SSM, but back to the Libertarian meme of this thread, I don't think the government should be in the "marriage" business at all for straight or same sex marriages.  I think the government should set up a civil union/partnership process with agreed upon restrictions such as your partner can't be a close relative type of stuff and be done with it.  If I want my best guy friend to inherit my stuff and have legal say in my medical care then so be it.
Churches can still have marriages and use whatever rules they want to, but the state component is the same.

Now see, right there... that's just brilliance. I do not disapprove of SSM on a religious basis... I disapprove of it because I'm not gay and I don't get it. For a while, I just didn't care... I mean it was a small issue really. But it got bigger... and finally, there is no rational way I could oppose SSM just from a individual freedom standpoint. None what so ever.

So just like you say, it should not be about mob rule. The government should not be in the business of protecting the mob and giving it perks. It should give perks to citizens. And the SCOTUS, ruled based on equal protection that that is exactly the case. And I agree with it 100%.

Both sides can actually agree on freedoms... they just can't agree on the same ones and what their vision of Utopia entails. Liberals seem to want to force what they want on others, but don't touch their abortions or speech, and same with conservatives with religion and guns... you know how those conservative love to cling to their guns and religion...

Sorry!  (shaking my head in my hands) I'm in a professional 'rut', so  I'm gonna ask that we pivot away from my previous comments and write them off as the insane musings of a jaded, Federal employee.     I could explain myself in far greater detail, but my shrink would feel like I'm cheating on her.  Sadly, I have a Pavlovian response anytime I hear the term 'smaller govt,'-in my own mind all I hear is 'blah blah...let's eliminate federal assistance programs...blah blah.'   It's my problem and I am seeking help for it. 

I'll be watching from the sidelines if anyone needs a crazy person. 

I like that! 

Excellent Jeff. I feel we have made a real break through today. See you next week at 4:00.

Oh ya, and I am hopelessly cynical.

I disagree. If that is how you see it, that is fine. No problems here. But that does not work for me.

By the above statement you paint this into a religious corner. Even if it's not a Christian one. I believe there is something bigger than me. I'm not talking Supreme beings. I think there is a bigger purpose to this all... and maybe there isn't, but just because I say there is and that is how I want to believe, there is. I believe people at their core want to be free. If given the choice, they would choose it. I believe people want to be free from harm and oppression. We can simply call it the  "human spirit". I know people are capable of all bad things, but they are also capable of all the good ones too.

Now I don't know if my belief in a higher purpose/state, or human spirit qualifies as a "Ethereal thing" for your example, but it certainly isn't a religion. It isn't a divine entity that gave me my desire to be free. As it stands right now, God does or does not exist. If not, then the Constitution is exactly that... a peace of parchment. But no matter how you look at it, our Founders were inspired to be better, and so they shaped what we have.We as a people aspire to be better... it's a work in progress.

I just get tired of the same old argument, that you have to believe in Devine gift giving to buy into the Constitution, or you are... well Godless commies... I mean that is what it comes down to right? Human/secular powered statistics... or devine/righteous liberty loving people.

OK, I understand the roots of the country and where our laws came from, but you said, "The Liberty crowd believe rights are God (or whatever etheral thing that floats you boat) given and place their faith in God and country"... and then finished with... "But my bearings are in line with this Democrat; "The right's of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God" - JFK".

So you framed your statements around God to begin with. I'm glad to see I don't have to believe in God, nor do I want to make it sound as if you think I do, but it does not even have to go there. It is very simple to say the People have the power and confer that to the government versus the State has the power and give it to the people and leave it at that... in fact, if it was packaged as such and sold accordingly, I do believe many more people would buy into it.That is what we have, it just seems lost on some.

This argument does sort of have a history of falling into the trap of religion... that I don't have to listen to your stupid socialist government because my rights come straight from the hand of God and he trumps you. I'm good with the People keeping the power simply because it's better than the State having it.

As it stands... I have never thought our government to be evil. They never took a thing in their life... The People willingly gave it. I think too much has been given. I would like to reverse that trend.

I was talking about that with a friend the other day too.  If you look at it in the purest form Communism is almost the perfect example of "everyone is equal" type of government.  Everyone does their fair share and everyone gets the same.

However, we came to the conclusion that it's counter to human nature where people want to be better, stronger, and faster than everyone else.  So, when you do have a communist government there is always corruption and people gaming the system to one up everyone else.

Capitalism on the other hand is more geared towards our human nature because it allows the competitive and driven people to work their way to the top and the lazy slugs to fall to the bottom.  However, a pure form of capitalism would be really bad as well because if you find yourself injured or in a mental state where you're unable to work you're pretty much dead.

So, the US in concept is trying to balance both philosophies in that we provide a capitalistic economy, but we have safety nets for those that need some help.  The big issue is the safety nets aren't really safety nets any more, they're ways of life for far to many.  We also have corruption within both systems as well which doesn't help either.

You can't really confuse economic systems with government systems.

As far as the bolded... I don't really have any idea how true that statement is. I have a feeling, that is is not as true as many want to think. The way it is used... is the common complaint of too many people living off their hard work... the 47%. And it makes for good stories and sound bites on FOX, but I don't buy it.

Like we said... if people are entitled to a benefit... then they are. And many MANY people on the top end of things, do exactly the same thing... take everything they are entitled too. Take every tax deduction they can, shuffle money to shelters, do wehat ever they legally can to pay as little as possible. How is that any different than those on the bottom taking every advantage given to them????

Now fraud is just fraud. Illegal activity. And there are just as many on top doing it as there are those on the bottom.  It's only breaking the law if you get caught right?

I actually don't know any in the middle that work hard and pay their way and don't take ANY benefits for themselves so that other people can receive it. Do you?