Thread: SO can we just throw the senate and congress out on their asses already?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I think you are off. Disinterest in government power is unsustainable. You may start off with a small government but I believe it will not have an incentive to stay that way. You would need a static political society in which everyone has the same conception of the role of government and no one can deviant beyond that role because you would need a constant majority to maintain the role. You would need constant watchmen over bills to make sure it does not extend the powers of the state. I just do not see that happening. It will grow. Strike the root and it will whither.

It is true that the general mass would have to understand that big government destroys freedom, and since there are people still rooting for terrible systems today even though they have failed many times throughout history, and are also flawed logically, I cannot argue that if we returned to a small government republic, that people would remember the mistakes of the current epoch. People are not and probably never will be willing to put in the hundreds of hours of study required to properly understand the history of politics and liberty. Some are lazy, some don't care, and some are simply too busy being productive in other ways.

However, hypothetically speaking, I believe a can argue that such a majority can be maintained. In the early days of the republic, people had no desire to change what was working well for them. The government expansion through ignorance that we see in the twentieth century was not possible back then, and when it did happen it was an extremely slow process, only allowed for by the problems I will mention here.

To start with, the constitution has loopholes, and since it was partially influenced by Hamilton, who was a monarchist, one could argue that these loopholes were deliberate. Hamilton was using lawyer talk to fool the population even then. The supreme court clearly had too much power, but nothing was done about this. I would argue that this was the main cause for the usurpation of rights up until the war between the states. However, Jefferson, who was not present at the signing of the constitution, continued to push for states' rights even though it is an idea these days considered extremist. The idea is that you have all these districts competing for power, which keeps the central power in check better than which was customary (allowing the federal government to decide for itself what was constitutional through the judicial branch).

Now, even though this huge loophole existed, the rights of the states could still not be taken away until the federal government finally decided to take them by force of arms, and so Lincoln sent troops to murder the secessionists and force them to capitulate. The 14th amendment was even signed under coercion and outright hostage taking.

Since then, we have the mass ignorance that you speak of, but I think it's important to understand that this was simply not possible until after the federal government used outright force; and since the rights were no longer manifest, the people eventually forgot them and Hamiltonianism and subsequently progressivism was allowed to flourish. I believe that in the presence of states' rights, which were not largely endorsed by the federalists, but rather by the anti-federalists, such a situation could only be achieved through victory in war, as the people generally liked the idea of free states in a compact.

It is difficult to convince someone the world is flat if they know the science, but if you kill them you can tell their children and grandchildren the lie and they will believe it, so long as you hide the science.

Even though many states even disagreed with the idea of nullification by virtue of the fact that it was simply not a major consideration in many areas, with the notable exception of Virginia, it still took a war to wrench the power away from those states that did understand the division of power. Now imagine had we started out with a strict understanding of states' rights across the board, and a "repaired" constitution, with amendments specifically outlining certain areas that need attention.

Perhaps it is a dream, but no more a dream than anarchy, and I think more likely. Now, from here, we can experiment with anarchy if certain states wish to. This is the beauty of states' rights and the tenth amendment, which Jefferson called "the cornerstone of the constitution", the very area that came under direct attack and is still considered treasonous to consider.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Please explain how libertarianism = anarchism?

He just did lol

Naturally following the NAP to its logical conclusion is absurd, however, because you remove any practical means to enforce said NAP.

what does NAP mean?

Originally Posted by Xei

Naturally following the NAP to its logical conclusion is absurd, however, because you remove any practical means to enforce said NAP.

How so?

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

what does NAP mean?

Non-aggression principle. Simple term meaning one should not initiate force on another.

Originally Posted by Xei

Naturally following the NAP to its logical conclusion is absurd, however, because you remove any practical means to enforce said NAP.

Enforcing = aggressively beating them in to submission. Coo....

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Non-aggression principle. Simple term meaning one should not initiate force on another.

Or threaten to.

Here is a great video to elaborate:

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

How so?

Because you need a justice system and security force.

Originally Posted by tommo

Enforcing = aggressively beating them in to submission. Coo....

1. I don't have a clue what you're talking about, but whatever you are talking about is wrong.
2. You're not remotely a libertarian, therefore you personally support the breaking of the NAP far more than I do.

Originally Posted by Xei

Because you need a justice system and security force.

No one concludes that every human that exists now and in the future will be a perfect creature. Use of the NAP (or "acceptance" if you wish to call it that. I personally don't) is not required for everybody. The NAP doesn't preclude or ignore a justice system or security force.

I don't think you're understanding the point. What if there are not enough people willing to pay for the security force?

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't think you're understanding the point. What if there are not enough people willing to pay for the security force?

Then they won't pay for the security force...Meaning they probably don't need it.

Originally Posted by Xei

1. I don't have a clue what you're talking about, but whatever you are talking about is wrong.

I'm saying you don't need to be aggressive to enforce something.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Then they won't pay for the security force...Meaning they probably don't need it.

Possibly.

Originally Posted by tommo

I'm saying you don't need to be aggressive to enforce something.

That wasn't my meaning. The NAP doesn't contradict itself by virtue of the fact that you need to use force to stop somebody from using force; it includes that caveat.

I'm not sure how in general you think that enforcement doesn't require aggression, though. How do you propose to pay for public schools if not enough people volunteer?

Originally Posted by Xei

That wasn't my meaning. The NAP doesn't contradict itself by virtue of the fact that you need to use force to stop somebody from using force; it includes that caveat.

Well I don't get what you meant then.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not sure how in general you think that enforcement doesn't require aggression, though. How do you propose to pay for public schools if not enough people volunteer?

Educate them on why it is better, for everyone, for them to do so.

Note: As you said, I don't think NAP is a good principle. I don't think it isn't either.
I'm just debating the points raised. I haven't thought about it enough to form an opinion on whether or not it is good.

Originally Posted by tommo

Maybe???? lol I've been voting 3rd party since I was allowed to vote.

Could you imagine having a green party candidate in the white house? No, seriously, try to picture it, 2012, at the swearing-in ceremony, and the green party candidate steps up to take the oath. And the only thing stopping it is the media generated self-perpetuating falseity that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Wasted why, because they never win? The sole reason for that is that most people believe that a third-party vote is wasted. It's fucking insanity!

I fucking hate it when I hear people going on about not voting for third parties, acting as if the idea of actually electing someone that gives a fuck is nothing more than a childish fantasy.

Originally Posted by Supernova

Could you imagine having a green party candidate in the white house? No, seriously, try to picture it, 2012, at the swearing-in ceremony, and the green party candidate steps up to take the oath. And the only thing stopping it is the media generated self-perpetuating falseity that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Wasted why, because they never win? The sole reason for that is that most people believe that a third-party vote is wasted. It's fucking insanity!

I fucking hate it when I hear people going on about not voting for third parties, acting as if the idea of actually electing someone that gives a fuck is nothing more than a childish fantasy.

QFT.

It's a self-fulfilling pile of steaming bull shit.

My city has elected a Greens candidate after the last elections. I think it will happen more and more as people just get majorly pissed off with the two main parties doing nothing but fuck shit up.

Originally Posted by tommo

Educate them on why it is better, for everyone, for them to do so.

That would be something that happens in the free market. It has very little to do with how the government raises money.

Originally Posted by tommo

Educate them on why it is better, for everyone, for them to do so.

So if I still disagree with you you wouldn't support using force to get me to pay my taxes?

Originally Posted by cmind

StonedApe, although I agree that the congress are just as evil as the Empire in Star Wars (seriously), I don't think mob rule would solve anything. Such a notion only leads to more powerful governments (see Russia c. 1917).

I'm not suggesting mob rule, just mobs throwing out the congress. But I was just expressing anger not throwing out a solution. I agree with you guys saying that revolutions of force just lead to more government.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

That's a very refreshing, calming thing to hear as a Libertarian. (Note the difference with libertarianism and anarchism; we still want government, but it should do just a few things, keep roads, protect individual rights, and simple things like a fire department. The rest is basically anarcho-capitalism).

I don't feel like writing a whole bunch of stuff about how it will work, but if you look into it roads and most other things could be better done by private groups. I do see how it might be beneficial to keep publicly funded fire and police(possibly some other stuff) but I still think you have to follow the NAP; fund it in a voluntary manner.

I'm optimistic that we as a society could follow the NAP to it's logical conclusion, but I'm also not 100% sure of it. But it seems to me that we could get rid of everything up to courts and police (and probably have privatized police). Courts could easily fund themselves with fines for those who lose.

So they failed to reach a deal on spending increase cuts.

(I find it funny that they spent all this time bickering about cutting how much the spending would INCREASE... not even cutting the spending, just saying "let's not spend as much more this year as we did last year from the previous." Sure acting like adults eh?)

Also, I believe that the court system is a good thing to have as part of our government. I agree with privatizing MOST things, but not absolutely everything. However, if we restricted government to its Constitutional limits, virtually everything WOULD remain privatized.

I believe in public utilities that only take in the cost of the service they provide for industries like hospitals and higher education. The bottom line of education and healthcare should be education and healthcare. Private ownership should be reserved for our industries that are meant for profit rather than comfort. Unfortunately the government acts like a private company now more than ever and the system has been compromised.

Private ownership should be reserved for our industries that are meant for profit rather than comfort

I'm up for government-run hotels and spas!

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Unfortunately the government acts like a private company now more than ever and the system has been compromised.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'm up for government-run hotels and spas!

Private means run by a company.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

So if I still disagree with you you wouldn't support using force to get me to pay my taxes?

Most people would not still disagree. Only a very small minority. The only reason I can see for why people try to avoid taxes at any cost right now
is that they either have no education basically, or they have had shit education. Even the most non-introspective person should be able to see that
it's better, if it's laid out for them and clearly explained.

Originally Posted by tommo

Private means run by a company.

...Yeah, so?