If the AP is Correct

[Annie]

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).

Seems to me that many that tend towards libertarianism, broke for the most part from Libertarian, over WOT. I've seen little movement back or towards that party.

Now RP and his supporters are making it very unlikely that the party will see growth for quite awhile, regardless of any exhaustion regarding the war. I know of no libertarians that would accept the idea that RP could not distance himself from racists, anti-semites, or truthers. I saw someone here or on another board say that he had disavowed the truthers, what they failed to understand he still blamed America for being in the ME for 9/11. Sorry, that fails to work. The US had and has vital interests in the ME, moreso for our allies even than ourselves. I'm not speaking only of Israel, Japan and Europe require ME oil even more than the US.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Well, to be fair (I'm not technically libertarian... yet), the LP has, since its inception, been just a drug party. Most true believers prefer not to associate with the buffoons within the party ranks...

 

[Beefy]

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.

No I'm not being obtuse. You've presented a question that's premise itself precludes an answer. If you want me to write some sort of dissertation who's merits will be judged by your decision as the whether or not it is satisfactory, then dream on.

I've adequately answered your question. The power of the government would be limited to and be bound by the constitution. THAT IS the role of the government.

The government would be there to protect the individual liberties prescribed in the constitution and provide for due governance in enacting such.

What is so radical to you about having a government that has to follow rules? How is that automatically not good governance?

Give me an alternative. What we have now, is certainly an alternative to libertarian government, and guess what, more war, spying on citizens, fiscal disaster and corporatism. What alternative do you suggest?

And saying "Duh, thatphphhbbhbh's not an answer" is not going to cut it.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No I'm not being obtuse. You've presented a question that's premise itself precludes an answer. If you want me to write some sort of dissertation who's merits will be judged by your decision as the whether or not it is satisfactory, then dream on.

I've adequately answered your question. The power of the government would be limited to and be bound by the constitution. THAT IS the role of the government.

The government would be there to protect the individual liberties prescribed in the constitution and provide for due governance in enacting such.

What is so radical to you about having a government that has to follow rules? How is that automatically not good governance?

Give me an alternative. What we have now, is certainly an alternative to libertarian government, and guess what, more war, spying on citizens, fiscal disaster and corporatism. What alternative do you suggest?

And saying "Duh, thatphphhbbhbh's not an answer" is not going to cut it.

Again, you've done what other Libertarians have done. You made ad hominin attacks followed with slogans. No reasonable explanations. I'll give you credit though. At least you tried. No other libertarian has. Best of luck to you.

 

[Damocles]

Again, you've done what other Libertarians have done. You made ad hominin attacks followed with slogans. No reasonable explanations. I'll give you credit though. At least you tried. No other libertarian has. Best of luck to you.

This depends on what you mean by "slogan" as well as "hostile", both of these are improper stereotypes of a philosophy and how it is expressed.

Libertarians believe there is a role for government, otherwise there would be no need to make up a new word and they could use Anarchists instead.

There is no measure of how Democrats or Republicans could provide competent government, even though they believe the role of government to be far more intrusive than Libertarians would, this is because competence resides in the person and not the system. The Founders built a pretty fool-proof system so that powers of one group would be checked by those of another, but that doesn't stop any party from putting forward incompetent boobs on occasion, or from incompetent boobs running against other incompetent boobs to win based on people thinking "Geez, this one is slightly less stupid..."

You believe that all libertarians would be incompetent simply because of a difference of opinion in the role of government. This is based on a simplified and stereotyped bumper-sticker version of what Libertarianism is about, in short, it is in and of itself an ad hominem attack that you say others have perpetrated on you.

The Libertarians could provide competent government regardless of the limited role they believe that government should play by simply putting forward competent people rather than the radical insanity that party has offered in the past.

The libertarian philosophy is a philosophy of governance, to say that they are "hostile" to government would be ridiculous, they are "hostile" to force. Your belief that all government is incompetent if they are not intrusive notwithstanding, competence is not measured by how much the government gives away, nor is the measure found in how much it intrudes. Competence, like quality is a measure that is found inside people, not parties.

 

[Beefy]

This depends on what you mean by "slogan" as well as "hostile", both of these are improper stereotypes of a philosophy and how it is expressed.

Libertarians believe there is a role for government, otherwise there would be no need to make up a new word and they could use Anarchists instead.

There is no measure of how Democrats or Republicans could provide competent government, even though they believe the role of government to be far more intrusive than Libertarians would, this is because competence resides in the person and not the system. The Founders built a pretty fool-proof system so that powers of one group would be checked by those of another, but that doesn't stop any party from putting forward incompetent boobs on occasion, or from incompetent boobs running against other incompetent boobs to win based on people thinking "Geez, this one is slightly less stupid..."

You believe that all libertarians would be incompetent simply because of a difference of opinion in the role of government. This is based on a simplified and stereotyped bumper-sticker version of what Libertarianism is about, in short, it is in and of itself an ad hominem attack that you say others have perpetrated on you.

The Libertarians could provide competent government regardless of the limited role they believe that government should play by simply putting forward competent people rather than the radical insanity that party has offered in the past.

The libertarian philosophy is a philosophy of governance, to say that they are "hostile" to government would be ridiculous, they are "hostile" to force. Your belief that all government is incompetent if they are not intrusive notwithstanding, competence is not measured by how much the government gives away, nor is the measure found in how much it intrudes. Competence, like quality is a measure that is found inside people, not parties.

This has been my point all along. His premise is flawed. Libertarians are "hostile to government"... That's the premise, thus his whole question is invalid.

 

[Damocles]

This has been my point all along. His premise is flawed. Libertarians are "hostile to government"... That's the premise, thus his whole question is invalid.

Exactly.