If the AP is Correct

They should change the name of this place to "The Ron Paul Admiration Society".

Paul is a libertarian and libertarianism is bankrupt ideology. It all sounds good on paper but here's what you get when you have a government run by those with an anti-government hostility. You get lousy governance and how could you expect anything less.

I mean for god's sake, isn't that the lesson to be learned from Bush and his crew of incompetants?

Now I don't think Paul would be as incompetant as Bush, but how could one expect competant governance from some one who is essentially hostile towards government?

No libertarian has answered that question for me. They ussually just respond with ad hominin attacks or more anti-government slogans.
 
Mottleydude said:
They should change the name of this place to "The Ron Paul Admiration Society".
Click to expand...

And you should be renamed "SR's last remaining ass barnacle".

Paul is a libertarian and libertarianism is bankrupt ideology. It all sounds good on paper but here's what you get when you have a government run by those with an anti-government hostility. You get lousy governance and how could you expect anything less.

I mean for god's sake, isn't that the lesson to be learned from Bush and his crew of incompetants?
Click to expand...

The Bush administration is the most anti-libertarian government ever seen. How you draw a comparison here is beyond me. Big government, war mongering, citizen spying, morality legislating... How are any of these libertarian ideals?

Now I don't think Paul would be as incompetant as Bush, but how could one expect competant governance from some one who is essentially hostile towards government?
Click to expand...

Hostility to government is not the issue. Its adherence to the Constitution. You only perceive it as hostility towards all forms of government because most government in this day and age is unconstitutional. It used to be that the government was the servant, but now the people are the slaves. $3 Trillion for next years budget? Don't you see some merit in wanting to reduce government?

No libertarian has answered that question for me. They ussually just respond with ad hominin attacks or more anti-government slogans.
Click to expand...

Its been answered now.
 
Beefy said:
And you should be renamed "SR's last remaining ass barnacle".



The Bush administration is the most anti-libertarian government ever seen. How you draw a comparison here is beyond me. Big government, war mongering, citizen spying, morality legislating... How are any of these libertarian ideals?



Hostility to government is not the issue. Its adherence to the Constitution. You only perceive it as hostility towards all forms of government because most government in this day and age is unconstitutional. It used to be that the government was the servant, but now the people are the slaves. $3 Trillion for next years budget? Don't you see some merit in wanting to reduce government?



Its been answered now.
Click to expand...

No you didn't answer my question at all. You did exactly what I said all other libertarians have (though It's hard to consider being on of SR's ass barnacles a bad thing :-). You made an ad hominin attack followed by slogans.

My comparison is valid and isn't based on ideology but the anti-government hostility that right wing conservatives and libertarians share.

and you didn't answer my question at all. So I'll repeat it again. How can we expect competant government from Libertarians with their anti-government hostility?

I'll give you big credit. You're the only so one to give an honest attempt at an answer.
 
Mottleydude said:
No you didn't answer my question at all. You did exactly what I said all other libertarians have (though It's hard to consider being on of SR's ass barnacles a bad thing :-). You made an ad hominin attack followed by slogans.

My comparison is valid and isn't based on ideology but the anti-government hostility that right wing conservatives and libertarians share.

and you didn't answer my question at all. So I'll repeat it again. How can we expect competant government from Libertarians with their anti-government hostility?

I'll give you big credit. You're the only so one to give an honest attempt at an answer.
Click to expand...

Your premise is flawed. You're suggesting that libertarians want no government whatsoever. Some do, but those are retarded dipshits. Most libertarians understand the some government is needed, but government should not be a mindless, exponential babysitter for all and consume half the earnings of its constituents while waging wars and throwing people in prison for victimless crimes.

A libertarian does not equal a total anarchist. You know this. So until you take the flawed premise out of your question, you have an unanswerable question.

Let me ass you this. Why do environmentalist waste resources and destroy the Earth in pursuit of envioronmentalism? They drive, and use electricity, they eat plants that would otherwise be reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Why would they want to destroy the environment in order to preach about saving it?


See how stupid that is?
 
Beefy said:
Your premise is flawed. You're suggesting that libertarians want no government whatsoever. Some do, but those are retarded dipshits. Most libertarians understand the some government is needed, but government should not be a mindless, exponential babysitter for all and consume half the earnings of its constituents while waging wars and throwing people in prison for victimless crimes.

A libertarian does not equal a total anarchist. You know this. So until you take the flawed premise out of your question, you have an unanswerable question.

Let me ass you this. Why do environmentalist waste resources and destroy the Earth in pursuit of envioronmentalism? They drive, and use electricity, they eat plants that would otherwise be reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Why would they want to destroy the environment in order to preach about saving it?


See how stupid that is?
Click to expand...

Again, not an anwer. I didn't say Libertarians want no government at all. I said they were hostile toward government and you have to admit...a lot of so called libertarians (but by no means all) are anarchist in drag, though that's another topic.

So, maybe I should rephrase the question. How can libertarian philosophy provide a superior form of governance? Please spare me the cliche's about the constitution. I want to know how Libertarians would provide competant government. I'm not convinced they can.
 
Mottleydude said:
Again, not an anwer. I didn't say Libertarians want no government at all. I said they were hostile toward government and you have to admit...a lot of so called libertarians (but by no means all) are anarchist in drag, though that's another topic.

So, maybe I should rephrase the question. How can libertarian philosophy provide a superior form of governance? Please spare me the cliche's about the constitution. I want to know how Libertarians would provide competant government. I'm not convinced they can.
Click to expand...

The premise of your argument is circular. You're being a hemorrhoid about this. Your premise is that since libertarians are "hostile to government, they can't govern". Its not inherent hostility towards government, its disapproval of the current miscarriages of justice of government. Most libertarians will tell you that they would like to adhere to the Constitution in a strict constructionist sense, and if the government was full of libertarians, that is how it would be run. And that is a "superior form of governance" and quite a bit more "competent" than the current slew of whores we have running the asylum.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. Libertarians would govern the way the constitution prescribes, and would be most interested in reducing government to within those parameters. I don't see how for you, this is "incompetent", or an "inferior form of governance". If thats how you see it, then we simply have a disagreement in terms.

Again, your premise is inferring that this nebulous hostility towards government is equivalent to not wanting government at all, or to total incompetence.

I realize it may be difficult for a big government kind of guy to see how anyone could think that way, but its really not that complicated.
 
What is the point...........

of all these RP diatribes anyhoo...He is not going to be President...His policies are not going to be adopted...he adds humor to the Presidential run for office as witnessed on this board...I personally support Duncan Hunter..but being a realist I know this will not happen...he just can't get traction...so I have moved on... if by a miracle he gets traction I will toot his horn again...until then all is a moot point!;)
 
Well as Reagan said Beefy......There You go Again! You can't avoid either the ad hominin attacks or cliches. First, I'm asking a question not posing a solution. No circular reasoning involved. I did not say libertarians cannot govern. I asked, how they could provide competant governance?

and again you fail to even address the question. Being a strict consructionist is no guarentee that you'd provide affective or competant governance. Hell shrub claims to be a strict constructionist. As a strict constructionist I can fairly ask you if a black person should only be considered as 2/3rds of a person?

The "Big Government" argument is a bogus argument. Were a big country and we need a big goverment. Hell I don't care if the government is big or small as long as it meets the needs and the consent of those governed. It's juvenile becuase it is limited government which is important and limited government has nothing to do with size but the limitation, via checks and balances, of goverments powers.

You are close to being right on my premis. That is, how can I expect affective and competant government from those who are hostile towards government? I percieve libertarians as being inately hostile towards government, though for very good reasons, as all goverments are coercive in nature.

I have to agree with you, the libertarian ideas about government aren't complicated and that's another reason why I just don't think it would work.
 
Mottleydude said:
Well as Reagan said Beefy......There You go Again! You can't avoid either the ad hominin attacks or cliches. First, I'm asking a question not posing a solution. No circular reasoning involved. I did not say libertarians cannot govern. I asked, how they could provide competant governance?

and again you fail to even address the question. Being a strict consructionist is no guarentee that you'd provide affective or competant governance. Hell shrub claims to be a strict constructionist. As a strict constructionist I can fairly ask you if a black person should only be considered as 2/3rds of a person?

The "Big Government" argument is a bogus argument. Were a big country and we need a big goverment. Hell I don't care if the government is big or small as long as it meets the needs and the consent of those governed. It's juvenile becuase it is limited government which is important and limited government has nothing to do with size but the limitation, via checks and balances, of goverments powers.

You are close to being right on my premis. That is, how can I expect affective and competant government from those who are hostile towards government? I percieve libertarians as being inately hostile towards government, though for very good reasons, as all goverments are coercive in nature.

I have to agree with you, the libertarian ideas about government aren't complicated and that's another reason why I just don't think it would work.
Click to expand...

Mott, your premise is essentially this:

Since libertarians can't govern in a competent way, how can they govern in a competent way? How on earth do you expect an answer that you will find satisfactory?

How is that not circular? And my ad homs are nothing to take personal. I'm just a bastard with high speed internet. I'm almost never serious. I don't know if you know this or not, but my moniker at SR's site was mbl.
 
So Mottleydude, are we to believe now that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Q. Adams were all incompetent because they adhered to limited government and constitutionalism.
 
Beefy. You're being obtuse. I'm not beeing logical. I'm asking a question. Nor am I assuming that libertarians cannot govern competantly. I'm asking you to explain to me the mechanics of how a libertarian ran govermnet would operate affectively and thus convince me that it is a viable governance philsophy. I'm not attacking libertarianism. It's not that I don't believe in libertarianism so much as I am not sold on or convinced that it is viable as a political philosophy and a system of governance. That is the basis of my question.
 
Threedee said:
So Mottleydude, are we to believe now that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Q. Adams were all incompetent because they adhered to limited government and constitutionalism.
Click to expand...

By that respnse are you trying to tell me that Libertarians are essentially classical liberals? (which by the way would be a good answer to my question, if that is in fact what libertarianism represents.)
 
Threedee said:
Well, check that. Adams signed two pieces of unconstitutional legislation. But other than that...
Click to expand...

Is it not niave that any political party or ruling coalition could govern completely within the framework of the constitution? Is that not why the founding fathers engineered a form of limited and divided goverment so as to preserve the constitution as our model of government and to protect it and the people from those in power (regardless of their political affiliation)?
 
Actually, I am not a fan of the Jeffersonians. The reason why I stopped with Q. Adams is because the Jacksonian "Revolution" was ever so much more disastrous than the Jeffersonian "Revolution." Jefferson at least agreed not to roll back the Hamiltonian reforms, and he even renewed the Bank charter.

Nevertheless, Washington and Adams were not for bigger government. They simply believed that the federal government should wield the power granted to it at a sharply higher extent, while the Jeffersonians believed that the government should not even exercize much of the power it legitimately held.

I have always found it ironic that the development of American democracy came to us through jerks and hypocrites like Jefferson and Jackson while the greatest cases where a president saved the Republic from harm came from Lincoln and FDR (much more principled and moral men, although FDR had some major shortcomings) who presided as authoritarians and far exceeded the constraints of the Constitution.

I kind of see traditional conservatives as resembling the thought of Washington/Hamilton/Adams, modern libertarians as resembling Jefferson/Madison/Monroe and neocons/neolibs as two branches of thought stemming from Jackson/Van Buren (one continued on the course set by Wilson and the other moved on past FDR and onto LBJ and McGovern).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top