In Defense of Libertarianism, from HotWired's Synapse (fwd)
Forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:47:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: In Defense of Libertarianism, from HotWired's Synapse
Libertarianism is not about anarchy, utopia, or selfishness. Instead, libertarians simply are skeptical of "nanny government," and recognize the many ways state power has been abused in the past. They believe that government programs like health assistance, Social Security, foreign aid, and corporate welfare do more harm than good. They argue that everyone must be equal before the law, and everyone has human rights to personal security, to property, and to free speech that the government must protect, not violate.
If the Libertarians are so gung-ho on avoiding governmental (especialy federal) intervention in their lives why do they support the 14th Amendment? Why do they steadfastly stick to the position that the states should be forced to be homogenous in their laws under the federal government? It is clear that the founding fathers wanted the situation in the several states to be quite dynamic and diverse, otherwise why "Congress shall make no law..." and not something more comprehensive preventing the states from such laws as well? Why do they further not ask why the 9th and 10th are not fully respected and used by both the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government? No, the Libertarians have an agenda that is broader than simply reducing the intervention of government in our daily lives. They want a situation that provides them the upper hand, both politicaly and economicaly, while at the same time reducing the ability of their opponents to gain an advantage. From this perspective they are just another elephant or jackass... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|
There's presumably some far more appropriate place for this, but it's _your_ cypherpunks listserver :-) At 07:04 PM 9/12/97 -0500, Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> wrote:
If the Libertarians are so gung-ho on avoiding governmental (especialy federal) intervention in their lives why do they support the 14th Amendment?
Libertarians are generally very strong in insisting that the governments should respect the rights of their citizens, and as the 14th forces the Bill of Rights on the states, it adds some value. There's by no means agreement that the 14th is good, or that the States are or are not better at things than the Feds (it's pretty much agreed that it's easier for the States to do Bad Things, but that it's less dangerous when they do it than when the Feds do, since it's easier to leave a State.) Heck, many of us think that Lincoln was wrong in reconquering the South, though many of us also think that they seceeded for bad motives.
Why do they further not ask why the 9th and 10th are not fully respected and used by both the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government?
You haven't heard Libs rant for the 9th and 10th? You've obviously been tuning out :-) Must not have the patience ....
clear that the founding fathers wanted the situation in the several states to be quite dynamic and diverse, otherwise why "Congress shall make no law..." and not something more comprehensive preventing the states from such laws as well?
It's extremely clear that the Founding Finaglers had widely diverse opinions, some of which wanted central control and fiat currencies, others rabidly decentralist. Go read the Anti-Federalist Papers. And then, of course, go read the Federalist papers, and realize these were the more pro-big-government side of the bunch that overthrew their previous government.
On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Bill Stewart wrote:
clear that the founding fathers wanted the situation in the several states to be quite dynamic and diverse, otherwise why "Congress shall make no law..." and not something more comprehensive preventing the states from such laws as well?
It's extremely clear that the Founding Finaglers had widely diverse opinions, some of which wanted central control and fiat currencies, others rabidly decentralist. Go read the Anti-Federalist Papers. And then, of course, go read the Federalist papers, and realize these were the more pro-big-government side of the bunch that overthrew their previous government.
Not that everything was wonderful under the Articles of Confederation. For example states considered it their right to issue paper currency to pay you, but demand specie when you paid them. 13 little tyrannies wouldn't provide liberty, nor would it be likely that large states would not annex the smaller states. Some states had bills of rights in their constitutions, and every state might have had them for a while had the union not come to pass. But my point is that decentralization does not insure liberty - many eastern european countries were smaller than US states but less free. The Federalists tried, and to a fair extent succeeded in forming a centralized power that didn't see its first mission as being to grab more power. It got around to it after a while, but it prevented the states from doing it since you now had the federal government warring with the states in a separation of powers just as necessary as between the branches of government. Even your car comes with maintainence instructions. You need to refill the gas tank, keep the tires in balance and at the right pressure and change the oil. Omit these things and eventually the car has problems. You can condem the engineers for not producing a maintence free car, but you wouldn't be able to afford one even if it were possible. The founders could not create a maintainence free republic, but we have forgotten that each generation must relearn the lessons first laid down in the 1770's (yes - in The Declaration which listed the usurpations and the toll in lives and treasure). And rights reserved to the states or the people is part of that lost lesson. The soviet union kept their dead preserved in a shrine. We have a similar monument holding the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
participants (3)
-
Bill Stewart -
Jim Choate -
nospam-seesignature＠ceddec.com