ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The Conservative/Libertarian appreciation thread

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Mar. 07 2013, 10:58 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 06 2013, 9:57 pm

>I'm of the belief that is it not one or the other. I'm for both a reduction of poverty, as I favor capitalism, and a reduction of democracy.  And if you follow what I have been writing, I have clearly demonstrated that a reduction of poverty - a strong middle class with a vested interest in land ownership - solves the problem of majority rule, because the majority will simultaneously have a vested interest in their Supreme Laws, as opposed to their violation. However, the Government is not Constitutionally afforded the power to intervene in the economy for the purpose of reducing poverty. The private sector is responsible for the reduction of poverty.
And the fact that capitalism has done more to help those in poverty than anything else.  That's why those that are "poor" in the USA are much better off than the average person around most of the world.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Mar. 07 2013, 11:03 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 06 2013, 9:57 pm

>I don't consider Lincoln a socialist. I consider him a strait up tyrannical dictator that destroyed the Voluntary Union of the Founding Fathers.
Yes, Lincoln ignored the Constitution and decided to force his will on others in another country.  (Yes... what most people don't realize is that CSA was created before Lincoln's inauguration.  The Emancipation Proclamation was two years later.)  It would be equivalent to the Obama declaring today that he would free slaves in one of the countries that still has slavery today.


It would be an interesting hypothetical discussion to think about what would have happened to the CSA if the Civil War never happened.  How would it have affected the USA?  Would another country attacked and tried to take over either or both countries?  How long before the CSA eliminated slavery themselves?  Would the two countries ever recombine?


 


Sidenote:  If people has ever read the CSA Constitution, it's scary bad news.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 07 2013, 11:20 am

I understand your point about Lincoln, especially given the view regarding Federal power and the fact that Lincoln expanded it. However, calling him a tyrannical dictator mitigates the decisions that the man had to make regarding the Union. I don't envy Lincoln in any way for what had to decide, nor the burden that felt over each decision. So, no offense, but a dictator is short changing the man a bit.


The question of whether or not a person could be owned was a topic of debate since the United States was formed. Even reading the discussion in the conventions about the new form of government.


Slavery is not just a legal question-it is a moral question. Like I said, I don't envy Lincoln or the decisions he had to make. But, I agree with the Abolitionist movement, especially as it relates to a more Libertarian view. My rights stop were yours begin. We are both individuals, equal under American law, but I cannot come in to your property and take what I want-that would violate your right to property.


But, a person is not property. So, the ending of slavery was actually more Libertarian as it respected the rights of individuals to not be slaves (unless mandated for punishment).


I am sure that more can be said, but i haven't the time to do as much research as I like. Though I am looking forward to more responses to your posts

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 07 2013, 12:52 pm

I would like to take a moment and give a conservative/libertarian appreciation moment, brought to you by: Senator Rand Paul, who took twelve hours of his day to illustrate the point that we, the American people, need a straight answer as to whether or not the government can kill me with a drone without any preconditions and when I am not an imminent threat.


 


Thank you Senator Paul, as well as Senators Rubio, Cruz, and several others who stood by him during his filibuster yesterday.


http://www.youtube.com/user/SenatorRandPaul?feature=watch

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Mar. 07 2013, 1:38 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 07 2013, 12:52 pm

>

>I would like to take a moment and give a conservative/libertarian appreciation moment, brought to you by: Senator Rand Paul, who took twelve hours of his day to illustrate the point that we, the American people, need a straight answer as to whether or not the government can kill me with a drone without any preconditions and when I am not an imminent threat.

>Thank you Senator Paul, as well as Senators Rubio, Cruz, and several others who stood by him during his filibuster yesterday.

>http://www.youtube.com/user/SenatorRandPaul?feature=watch

>
I was able to watch some of that yesterday.  At least today the WH backed down and said that they can't kill non-combatants on US soil...


What I find the most "funny" is how the senior GOP "leadership" is coming out and bashing on Rand for demanding that the Constitution be followed.

DUKAT!!!!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 63

Report this Mar. 07 2013, 2:34 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 07 2013, 12:52 pm

>

>I would like to take a moment and give a conservative/libertarian appreciation moment, brought to you by: Senator Rand Paul, who took twelve hours of his day to illustrate the point that we, the American people, need a straight answer as to whether or not the government can kill me with a drone without any preconditions and when I am not an imminent threat.

>Thank you Senator Paul, as well as Senators Rubio, Cruz, and several others who stood by him during his filibuster yesterday.

>http://www.youtube.com/user/SenatorRandPaul?feature=watch

>


Don't forget Senator Wyden-- the only democrat who stood up for American values.


I just hope Rand Paul is doing this for the country, not because he's planning to run for president.


DUKAT!!!!! -Major Kira

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Mar. 07 2013, 4:16 pm

Quote: DUKAT!!!! @ Mar. 07 2013, 2:34 pm

>I just hope Rand Paul is doing this for the country, not because he's planning to run for president.
I doubt the GOP will allow him to get the nomination - they want ProRegressives, not peopel that support the Constitution.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 07 2013, 5:01 pm

fireproof, I'm looking forward to providing a response to your post. The next few days will be busy for me, so it'll probably be Sunday or Monday before I can tackle a proper response, which will offer alternative actions Lincoln could've taken if he was really for peace.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 07 2013, 9:06 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 07 2013, 5:01 pm

>

>fireproof, I'm looking forward to providing a response to your post. The next few days will be busy for me, so it'll probably be Sunday or Monday before I can tackle a proper response, which will offer alternative actions Lincoln could've taken if he was really for peace.

>


I too am looking forward to your response, and your angle is one I certainly had not considered before. However, I have already begun my own research as well, and look forward to the thought experiment.


 

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Mar. 08 2013, 9:32 am

How am I trying to spin his argument?

You keep implying that Madison thought the overbalance of landed interest was a bad thing. As if he was honestly concerned about making sure the majority had a vested interest in private property and the Constitution. If that were true, he would have went on to explain why government should reduce poverty to secure the interests of the majority. Instead, he went on to explain why government should reduce democracy to secure the interests of the "opulent minority."

The libertarian argument against democracy begins and ends with a democracy's potential to violate the non-aggression principle.

No, like Madison, your argument against democracy begins and ends with protecting the "opulent minority."

I'm for both a reduction of poverty, as I favor capitalism, and a reduction of democracy.

How does concentration of wealth and reduction of democracy lead to reduction of poverty?


DA/DT does not violate the non-aggression principle, as 1.) discrimination does not violate the non-aggression principle and 2.) DA/DT was a policy adopted by the military, which is discriminatory by nature. On point one - discrimination is a fact of life.

So forcing homosexuals to "stay in the closet" is okay because it's just discrimination and discrimination is a fact of life? Then what if the military had a DA/DT policy regarding religion? Would you defend that? After all, we can't have people dropping to their knees to pray in the middle of a battle.

Your fallacious accusation deemed my statement's relevance. However, if you still assert irrelevancy than it must also apply to the accusation that spawned the rebuttal.

Your friendships are irrelevant to the discussion. I don't care how many *insert minority group* friends you have. It doesn't validate your defense and just makes you sound like more of a bigot.

I don't recall talking about the 3/5 Clause. I believe you're attributing someone else's defense of it to me.

You're right about me attributing this to someone else. My bad.

On the 13th Amendment, your assertion is true. How can it be a victory for civil rights when private property - a civil right noted in the Bill of Rights - was broken by the 13th Amendment?

Because people are their own property:

"My view is that a person's body is their property and he/she can do with their property as desired, so long as one does not violate the non-aggression principle."

Congratulations on pointing out how I'm the one who supports involuntary servitude.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 08 2013, 8:55 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 07 2013, 9:06 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 07 2013, 5:01 pm

>

>

>fireproof, I'm looking forward to providing a response to your post. The next few days will be busy for me, so it'll probably be Sunday or Monday before I can tackle a proper response, which will offer alternative actions Lincoln could've taken if he was really for peace.

>

I too am looking forward to your response, and your angle is one I certainly had not considered before. However, I have already begun my own research as well, and look forward to the thought experiment.

 


Lone Palm,


I recently came across a book and read it (yes, a book!) regarding the Civil War. It highlighted Lincoln's more martial and hard line policies during the Civil War as well as the legality of secession.


So, before you get to far in to a long response, I would like to let you know that I can see more point, more than before, about Lincoln being a dictator. I don't agree with the descriptor, but, like other presidents, he expanded federal power in a different way.


So, I agree that Lincoln went too far in some ways, but agree with his position regarding slavery. So, its a mixed bag for me that I am still sorting out.


Actually, now I am more looking forward to your response to darmok's response

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 11 2013, 10:04 am

@ fireproof, thanks for the post. What/who was the book/author you recently read? I'm always looking for new books. My own sources include "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo (I also recommend cross referencing him on youtube, as he provides numerous lectures on the subject and shows how Lincoln violated the grievances listed against King George III in the Declaration of Independence); Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom (also good for courses in American History, Western History, Logic, and Austrian Economics); "Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty," by Ivan Eland; Edward Griffin's "The Creature From Jekyll Island"; and King Lincoln Archive @ www.lewrockwell.com. These sources are great for information outside Lincoln. 


Before I caught your post, I was doing some research and I'd like to share this little gem I found:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiH_XnqnyHU  It's a short video that refutes the common defense of Lincoln. 


I would like to raise a few questions of my own. The Republican Party was the Party of wealth redistribution for Internal Improvement Programs to which the South largely objected. So if Lincoln was anti-slavery for altruistic purposes, why didn't he apply the principle of Internal Improvement Programs to slavery and opt for Compensated Emancipation, as had been achieved through Europe? Why follow the model of South American Revolutaries, which resulted in dictatorships, and start a war that would be more costly, kill so many, and one that is not a guaranteed win?


Lincoln placed himself in contradiction of the Constitution. To justify his invasion of the South, he claimed the South to be in Rebellion. But Constitutionally, a State must be the one to declare a State of Emergency for the Federal Government to intervene with assistance. The Southern States never declared a State of Emergency. So if Lincoln is right, in so far as the States not seceding, then he waged war on the States. Isn't such action the very definition of treason found in the Constitution? If the States did secede, then Lincoln launched an undeclared war and invaded a foreign country, all without the consent of Congress. Either way, Lincoln's actions were dictatorial. (In fact, the Governor of Maryland illegally arrested State Legislatures, who were pro-secession and calling for a State Convention on the issue. Lincoln dispatched Federal Forces into Maryland, which hadn't declared a State of Emergency, to suppress elections and stop Maryland from Seceding. D.C. would have otherwise been surrounded by Confederate States. So Lincoln even waged war against a State that was still in the Union..)


Lincoln was hypocritical on the issue of secession for he had no problem supporitng secession when the Western Territory of Virginia seceded to form West Virgina. 


Finally, economic reality paints a far different picture from political legislation. Did Lincoln really free the slaves? Slavery was ended in a political sense, but there was economic and political blowback. The South saw the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, which was initially created for retaliation against Republicans. But most Republicans were off in D.C., and so the violence shifted to former slaves, who were easy scapegoats. And where whites, as slave owners, had been in a position to protect blacks, albiet as property, blacks were now left defenseless as they weren't permitted to own guns. Under slavery, the murder of a black person was checked by the fear of law investigation. The law would investigate a black person's death, because it was an issue of property and law breakers were to be held accountable. But with slavery gone, many law officials turned a blind eye to the murdering of blacks. The Southern States also created harsh laws, which can be traced back to preexisting Northern laws, aimed at the intentional imprisonment of blacks to obtain free labor. So what was gained in a practical sense? 


I'll be working on a response to darkmok tonight, but won't have time to post it until Tuesday at the earliest. Thank you for the encouragement.


 

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 206

Report this Mar. 11 2013, 11:34 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Mar. 07 2013, 11:03 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 06 2013, 9:57 pm

>

>I don't consider Lincoln a socialist. I consider him a strait up tyrannical dictator that destroyed the Voluntary Union of the Founding Fathers.
Yes, Lincoln ignored the Constitution and decided to force his will on others in another country.  (Yes... what most people don't realize is that CSA was created before Lincoln's inauguration.  The Emancipation Proclamation was two years later.)  It would be equivalent to the Obama declaring today that he would free slaves in one of the countries that still has slavery today.

It would be an interesting hypothetical discussion to think about what would have happened to the CSA if the Civil War never happened.  How would it have affected the USA?  Would another country attacked and tried to take over either or both countries?  How long before the CSA eliminated slavery themselves?  Would the two countries ever recombine?

 

Sidenote:  If people has ever read the CSA Constitution, it's scary bad news.


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Mar. 11 2013, 12:10 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 11 2013, 10:04 am

>Finally, economic reality paints a far different picture from political legislation. Did Lincoln really free the slaves? Slavery was ended in a political sense, but there was economic and political blowback. The South saw the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, which was initially created for retaliation against Republicans. But most Republicans were off in D.C., and so the violence shifted to former slaves, who were easy scapegoats. And where whites, as slave owners, had been in a position to protect blacks, albiet as property, blacks were now left defenseless as they weren't permitted to own guns. Under slavery, the murder of a black person was checked by the fear of law investigation. The law would investigate a black person's death, because it was an issue of property and law breakers were to be held accountable. But with slavery gone, many law officials turned a blind eye to the murdering of blacks. The Southern States also created harsh laws, which can be traced back to preexisting Northern laws, aimed at the intentional imprisonment of blacks to obtain free labor. So what was gained in a practical sense?
Yea.... I would suggest that people research the Black Codes of the different states.  Two of the items that were prevalent in the Black Codes were the fact that it was illegal for a black to own firearms or be taught to read/write.


Anyone else notice the similarities to today where the government is trying very hard to take away our firearms and screwing with the education system (80% of NYC high school graduates are illiterate.)

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 12 2013, 10:55 pm

 




@ fireproof, thanks for the post. What/who was the book/author you recently read? I'm always looking for new books. My own sources include "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo (I also recommend cross referencing him on youtube, as he provides numerous lectures on the subject and shows how Lincoln violated the grievances listed against King George III in the Declaration of Independence); Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom (also good for courses in American History, Western History, Logic, and Austrian Economics); "Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty," by Ivan Eland; Edward Griffin's "The Creature From Jekyll Island"; and King Lincoln Archive @ www.lewrockwell.com. These sources are great for information outside Lincoln. 


 


Thank you for the suggested reading. I will attempt to continue my research, though my feelings are still mixed and lean towards support of Lincoln. Despite the insistence that Davis and other Southern leaders were moral men, they did not always work towards a means of achieving a lasting peace. Not saying that Lincoln was perfect-far from it. But, I am still more sympathetic towards him, at least at this point. It might change, but that is a lot of reading


The book I read was The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War which addresses many of the points you raised. Check it out here: http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Civil-Guides/dp/1596985496/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363152065&sr=8-1&keywords=politically+incorrect+guide+to+the+civil+war


I would like to raise a few questions of my own. The Republican Party was the Party of wealth redistribution for Internal Improvement Programs to which the South largely objected. So if Lincoln was anti-slavery for altruistic purposes, why didn't he apply the principle of Internal Improvement Programs to slavery and opt for Compensated Emancipation, as had been achieved through Europe? Why follow the model of South American Revolutaries, which resulted in dictatorships, and start a war that would be more costly, kill so many, and one that is not a guaranteed win?


 


Lincoln placed himself in contradiction of the Constitution. To justify his invasion of the South, he claimed the South to be in Rebellion. But Constitutionally, a State must be the one to declare a State of Emergency for the Federal Government to intervene with assistance. The Southern States never declared a State of Emergency. So if Lincoln is right, in so far as the States not seceding, then he waged war on the States. Isn't such action the very definition of treason found in the Constitution? If the States did secede, then Lincoln launched an undeclared war and invaded a foreign country, all without the consent of Congress. Either way, Lincoln's actions were dictatorial. (In fact, the Governor of Maryland illegally arrested State Legislatures, who were pro-secession and calling for a State Convention on the issue. Lincoln dispatched Federal Forces into Maryland, which hadn't declared a State of Emergency, to suppress elections and stop Maryland from Seceding. D.C. would have otherwise been surrounded by Confederate States. So Lincoln even waged war against a State that was still in the Union..)


 


Lincoln was hypocritical on the issue of secession for he had no problem supporitng secession when the Western Territory of Virginia seceded to form West Virgina. 


Secession is an issue of much contention even now regarding Constitutionality. I am not convinced from my readings about both the Confederacy’s Secession, as well the Founding Fathers, that Secession is legal. This is probably where you and I will part ways, as I am not convinced that Secession is a Constitution right, and even if it is, I am not convinced the Confederate States went about in in a legal manner.


So Lincoln was hypocritical, but Davis took no action after the War to help the former Confederate States work to rebuild and enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. Davis himself believed that slavery would naturally evolve out of society yet took no steps to make it happen.


Finally, economic reality paints a far different picture from political legislation. Did Lincoln really free the slaves? Slavery was ended in a political sense, but there was economic and political blowback. The South saw the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, which was initially created for retaliation against Republicans. But most Republicans were off in D.C., and so the violence shifted to former slaves, who were easy scapegoats. And where whites, as slave owners, had been in a position to protect blacks, albiet as property, blacks were now left defenseless as they weren't permitted to own guns. Under slavery, the murder of a black person was checked by the fear of law investigation. The law would investigate a black person's death, because it was an issue of property and law breakers were to be held accountable. But with slavery gone, many law officials turned a blind eye to the murdering of blacks. The Southern States also created harsh laws, which can be traced back to preexisting Northern laws, aimed at the intentional imprisonment of blacks to obtain free labor. So what was gained in a practical sense? 


 


At some point, there was going to be this argument about Blacks position in society if ever they were not slaves. Ok, fine, the law did not go far enough to protect the newly freed slaves, but apparently the reaction by the South was to say “Screw the law” and took any moral standing the Southerners had and removed it by their hateful actions.


The law should have done more and people should have done more. But, slavery was ending, starting with Wilberforce in England. Maybe nothing was gained in the practical sense, but there was more to the abolitionist argument than just practical and economic concerns. For many, including (eventually) Lincoln, it was a moral argument.


Ultimately, despite disagreeing with the expansion of Federal power during the Civil War, I agree with Lincoln that the CSA did not have the right to secede, at least not in the manner that they did it. I believe that slavery is a moral issue, not just a legal one, and am just as against slavery today (it still exists) as the Abolitionist movement back then.


Finally, calling Lincoln a dictator would also have to include Roosevelt (both of them),  LBJ and Andrew Jackson, to name a few. Again, I don’t agree with Lincoln (or any president, save Washington) one hundred percent, but I try to take in all the facts, and persons behind the facts.


 


Good discussion _

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: DS9_FOREVER!

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum