Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Alright, so I admit...
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Alright, so I admit... (Read 2898 times)
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #30 - Apr 6th, 2014 at 12:22pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 8:55am:
Our government is not limited by 'progressive' notions of 'problems' that need to be solved, but by the Constitution, which does not provide any general powers to the government, just a few specific enumerated powers.

In case you doubt this, you should re-read the Federalist Papers, where you will find repeated assertions that NO general power is granted.

The Founders had a terrific idea to reduce poverty. Property rights, the rule of law and government limited by the Constitution. It worked great when we used it.

That's just the Federal Government though. State Governments are perfectly free to even go Socialist, let alone liberal or (socially) conservative.

Right?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #31 - Apr 6th, 2014 at 2:45pm
Print Post  
Liberalterian wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 12:22pm:
That's just the Federal Government though. State Governments are perfectly free to even go Socialist, let alone liberal or (socially) conservative.

Right?

No, once again, you're totally wrong.
Our Constitution guarantees that every State must have a Republican form of government. And of course the national government is charged with seeing to it that our State governments don't abuse our rights.
Socialism is most certainly an abuse of rights. Such abuses have a history as long as writing. Governments have always taken money from their subjects and given it to whoever they chose. Socialism is the same process, it's just gussied up with high moral purpose and a promise of paradise.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #32 - Apr 6th, 2014 at 3:59pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 2:45pm:
Liberalterian wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 12:22pm:
That's just the Federal Government though. State Governments are perfectly free to even go Socialist, let alone liberal or (socially) conservative.

Right?


No, once again, you're totally wrong.
Our Constitution guarantees that every State must have a Republican form of government. And of course the national government is charged with seeing to it that our State governments don't abuse our rights.
Socialism is most certainly an abuse of rights. Such abuses have a history as long as writing. Governments have always taken money from their subjects and given it to whoever they chose. Socialism is the same process, it's just gussied up with high moral purpose and a promise of paradise.


hmmmmmmmmm....

Socialism as an economy could exist under in a Republic if the people and representatives in government wanted it. The US Constitution doesn't specify what type of economy the nation can or can't have. It certainly doesn't guarantee "capitalism" as the type of economy we are to exist under.

To my knowledge there is nothing that prevents a Republican form or government and a socialistic economy. Even when we address the Right of Property the 14th Amendment merely states, 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' but Congress creates the laws.

It would sort of be like polygamy if we allowed it (and we should). It would be "American Polygamy" completely unlike "Islamic Polygamy" that most people would automatically think of.

"American Socialism" established under a Republican form of government would differ from other forms of socialism we would tend to compare it to.

In fact we have micro-economic socialism in the United States today because it is not prohibited by the law.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2119
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #33 - Apr 6th, 2014 at 6:21pm
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 3:59pm:
Socialism as an economy could exist under in a Republic


This is correct. Don't confuse universes of discourses. Ideologies are rarely a one package deal, but bits and pieces. The power system or hierarchy is one thing and one thing only, such as a democracy, republic, hybrids, monarchies, etc. Then you have an economic system(both strict and loose types). And you have positions of social standards, such as being a pacifist, a libertarian, etc. Most have compatibilities.

Much like other great economists have pointed out that a dictator can be an Austrian school economist, and an evil dictator. They would use wage and price fixing to cripple the people on purpose as a form of oppression to retain power and keep out competition.

It's still funny that you didn't account for April 1st in the Ops response though.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #34 - Apr 7th, 2014 at 7:40am
Print Post  
You are free to live communally with anybody you can talk into doing it.
You are not free to coerce others into your commune, or to force them to pay your bills.
Neither does our government have any power to enact socialist programs. Our Constitution is designed to prevent this. The Founders saw it for the evil that it is.
The first 100 years of our history support this view of our Constitution. Even simple things like wage laws and health and safety issues were rejected as unconstitutional.
The only thing that has changed is the Supreme Courts 'interpretation' of the Constitution, reconstituting the commerce clause as a General power of government, (It was not, and it is not), and a misconstruction of the 16th Amendment to create a new class of taxes that, while Direct, are exempt form the requirement that Direct taxes be apportioned.

A government designed to protect rights, especially property rights and the right to equal treatment under the law cannot also promote socialism.
Socialism requires the abrogation of property rights and unequal treatment under the law.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #35 - Apr 7th, 2014 at 12:06pm
Print Post  
I agree that originally these things were unconstitutional. Unfortunately the way that the Supreme Court rules is what determines constitutionality. Though there's no reason a future court couldn't reverse some more recent rulings and change the precedent for the future.

As for today, Socialist programs are all constitutional at least at the state level. Prove differently with more than "You're Wrong! HA!" use substantive arguments instead of behaving like that.

Personally I feel like any level of government is socialism. It's just a different degree of acceptance for some programs than others. For example: How is the military not a Socialist Program? We all pay for everyone's protection. The services and health care that soldiers get is government-run. Sounds pretty Socialist to me... So if Socialism is unconstitutional then this would mean that a public Military, Police, roads, etc. are all unconstitutional, not just social programs such as food stamps.

Personally I say just leave the states be. If a state wants to be Socialist (but keep a Republican form of government) then that's entirely within their powers to do so. What alternative do you propose? Go in with guns and force Vermont to not be Socialist?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4270
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #36 - Apr 7th, 2014 at 12:40pm
Print Post  
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #37 - Apr 7th, 2014 at 1:30pm
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 12:40pm:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Exactly. And the Supreme Court has ruled that Social Welfare Programs and other Socialist programs do not break this.

After all, there is a due process of law to establish them (legislature) and it applies equally (everyone has to pay into Social Security). So what's the problem?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #38 - Apr 7th, 2014 at 5:53pm
Print Post  
Liberalterian wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 1:30pm:
Exactly. And the Supreme Court has ruled that Social Welfare Programs and other Socialist programs do not break this.

After all, there is a due process of law to establish them (legislature) and it applies equally (everyone has to pay into Social Security). So what's the problem?


You can think what you will about the Supreme Court determining what is or is not Constitutional, but the power given to the government (including the courts) through the Constitution comes from the Sovereign People.
Nowhere in the Constitution did the people give the Courts any mechanism to change the Constitution, nor any authority. They have no role in the amendment process.
I agree with Founding Father and first Chief Justice John Jay that questions as to the meaning or proper operation of the Constitution must be referred to the People.
Precedent in our Supreme Court, up until the 'progressives' took over our government and coerced the Supreme Court into reversing all of them, basically for the first 100 years or so, all consistently refused to permit any type of socialism or redistributive programs.

Until the People duly and legally authorize a change in the Constitution, there is simply no authority given to the national government to take money from some citizens or class of citizens, and give it to others. And the Supreme Court has no authority to decree that they have usurped such power.

Actually, only working people pay S.S. taxes, and lots of people who didn't ever work for wages or salaries get 'benefits' under the law. That's one problem.
The more serious underlying problems are that the tax (F.I.C.A.) is a direct tax on wages and salaries that isn't being apportioned, and that the 'benefits' being paid out benefit some people, and not others.
The program was actually a nose under the tent. It was sold as "insurance" to benefit destitute widows and their children. It was not in fact "insurance", and the actual operation of the law was to tax all wages and salaries at ever increasing rates and put to use its structure as a Ponzi scheme to pay out more money to people than what they were credited for 'contributing'. It got a generation hooked, and the Supreme Courts coerced approval of such programs was what 'authorized' the distribution of wealth by the government in the U.S.
The government now feels totally free to give tax money to anyone, anywhere, for any reason.

I suppose it's all part of making us more like Europe, something that 'progressives' have been talking up and making happen for half a century that I remember. Now that we're more like Europe than even some counties in Europe are, Europe isn't looking so good.
But we simply MUST keep emulating European socialism, and extending it, until it envelopes the world.
That will be swell!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #39 - Apr 7th, 2014 at 6:27pm
Print Post  
Don't get me wrong, I think that Social Security is a terrible idea and ought to be gradually phased out (let people opt out freely).

That said, the courts don't change the constitution. They are simply interpreting the phrasing of the constitution differently than you or people in the first hundred years did. The Courts also used to say that Separate but equal is completely constitutional, then they found that it could not be equal if separate thus they ruled down the legality of separate but equal segregation laws.

Basically, you can interpret the same sentences totally differently. Take the sentence Josh posed: The courts could either read that as all social programs must be illegal/unconstitutional or they could read the exact same sentence and see: Well it says right here, without the due process of law. Thus they could argue that the legislators used the due process of the law (a legal vote, rather than some central dictate) and so the programs are fine.

In any case, I am opposed to most all programs at the Federal level. When it comes to Social Welfare I think there's a perfectly acceptable place for it at the state level (Again, if the majority of representatives vote for this). This is constitutional so long as the states use the due process of law (no dictates by a Governor, for example) and according to the tenth amendment the states have the power to do such programs.

Beyond that though, the constitution also expressly talks about furthering the general welfare. So wouldn't this allow for a Federal Citizen's Dividend? After all, everyone would get the same amount of money. Thus the general welfare is benefited as opposed to just a few people getting money (being qualified) such as with the current welfare programs like Food Stamps.

I believe the general welfare clause is also a justification used by some for Federal grants to independent research/science. Since everyone benefits from, for example, a cure for cancer.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Alright, so I admit...
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy