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

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 20 2013, 8:54 pm

Regarding secession: the marriage analogy is apt because it also reflects the current attitude of our culture towards marriage. If one is affronted at all in a marriage then one has the right to divorce, not questions asked. It is poor marriage if you can up and leave at any point with attempts at reconciliation.


Now, I understand that South Carolina attempted to list deal with the Federal Government and Lincoln rebuffed such efforts. I also know that Davis' argues in his book that since the States voluntarily joined, they could withdrawal at their whim.


I have more reading to do, but I am still not convinced that the States can just withdrawal with no form of "marriage counseling" to resolve differences. I think Bam_Bam asked me what efforts should have been made, what sort of circumstance would I consider lawful for secession of a State or States. First of all, a list of grievances would have to be presented before Congress in order to resolve any complaints. That is the point of the Federal Government that the US uses-States have equal say in the government and have a right to be heard.


While my research is ongoing, out of curiosity, I would still not equate Lincoln as a tyrant or a dictator. However, he took heavy handed approach to deal with what he considered to be rebels not another nation. That explains why he did what he did because he viewed the states as being rebellious, not as another foreign power to be treated with.


All of my reading has led me to a single conclusion-there were mistakes made on both sides. If Davis was so willing to see an end of slavery, why did he not assist in Reconstruction? Why were Southern leaders and law makers so hesitant to help and prevent much of the mistreatment of freed slaves? It was like they said “We lost…good luck North making us comply.”


It’s a sad statement that so much harm could have been prevented if people were willing to help.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 21 2013, 5:26 pm

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."


Specifically "...should reduce poverty to secure the interests of the majority," equates to political favoritism and appeals to majority rule, which is what politicians do to gain and stay in Office. During and after the Revolutionary War, State Governments appealed to democratic processes (securing the interests of their State majority) by intervening in their local economies with State-run Central Banks for the dual purposes of paying off war debts and providing their citizens with favoritism against other States in an effort to reduce local poverty. However, the economic intervention by these central authorities, having emitted unbacked bills of credit or fiat money, led to ruinous inflation and trade wars among the varying States with an increase in poverty for all. The Founding Fathers received a literal crash course in economics, learning first hand why centrally managed economies fail. The economic deprivation, caused by (State) Government intervention, was thus a causal factor leading into the Philadelphia Convention for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Ultimately, the Founding Fathers opted for a Constitution that minimzed government intervention in the market, because they recognized that the government is incapable of directly reducing poverty. After all, the government can only enrich one individual or group by stealing from and making destitute another individual or group. The best the government can do is to guarantee the economic fundamentals (sound money, private property, contracts and voluntary associations) that are necessary to generate wealth.


To provide the central government with the power or means to reduce poverty, a central bank or taxation, simultaneously provides that government with the power to create poverty, as the States previously proved. The effect is simply broadened from a microeconomic scale (or State Level) to a macroeconomic scale (nationwide). There is no reason to believe, and much evidence exists to the contrary, that a central bank works better on a macro scale than a micro scale.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 21 2013, 5:44 pm

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


The non-aggression principle applies to all individuals, whether singled in the minority or united in a majority. Democracy offers no guard against the violation of the non-aggression principle. An individual, the smallest of all minorities, has a right to be free from first-strike force from another individual or a group of individuals.


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


The above premise is false, as capitalism reduces poverty by creating and dispersing wealth (the pool of goods and services in a market), as opposed to concentrating or limiting it. For example, a capitalist creates a personal computer. He gains nothing, no profit is to be had, by keeping it to himself and withholding that product from the market. But by releasing it to the market through trade, the capitalist provides a new good that expands economic wealth and provides other individuals with a useful tool to increase their own economic standards. 


The same is true of money, another commodity good. If an individual accumulates all the money, that is to say the commodity serving as money, in the world and hoards it, the money/commodity  is removed from circulation and the commodity becomes useless as money. However, if the money is made available to others, than it becomes a mechanism by which to generate more goods and services (greater wealth) within the market. The dispersion of money via the process of loans is accompanied by interest rates. Interest rates generate income for the lender, who may convert the income into savings, which may be passed onto others by loans. Loans and interest based income would not exist if money was hoarded.


The Tragedy of the Commons explains how democracy creates poverty. Simply put, democracy creates multiple claims upon a single resource, much like fractional reserve banking, and so the resource is more likely to be consumed over a smaller period of time. Ten people can eat a pizza faster than one man. Also, those ten people are likely to eat the pizza immediately given their competition. If an individual waits, his piece may be consumed by someone else. However, the pizza is likely to last longer if owned by an individual with a singular claim. The owner may spread the pizza over multiple meals or share with those only desiring a slice as opposed to a full pie. The owner may even negotiate a trade, one slice for two slices in the future. Thus, the owner has negotiated not only for the pie's conservation and expansion, but also for the pie's perpetuation and dispersement. Wealth equates to the availability of the resource; poverty is the absense of the resource.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 21 2013, 7:52 pm

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? 


At the time, DA/DT was a military policy, the military service was not (and still isn't) mandatory, but voluntary. By volunteering, the individual accepts the policies in place, which the Constitution affords Congress to determine. If the individual opposes or cannot abide by a particular policy than the individual shouldn't join. Liberty provides us with choices, the consequences of which are trade offs. If I decide to stand, then I am consequently chosing not to sit. If i am homosexual and decide to join the military, whose policy is that of DA/DT, than I am deciding not to advertise my sexual orientation. 


Returning to discrimination, do you support children participating in the military? The argument can be made that all taxpayers should have access to and be able to participate in public programs, the military being one such program. Children are taxpayers, as a child pays taxes on purchased goods.   


These dilemmas are reconciled simply by acknowledging the elephant in the room, which is the unconstitutionality of a standing army. While the U.S. Constitution provides Congress the Power to create rules and regulations, such as DA/DT, for land and naval Forces, the Constitution does not permit or provide for a standing army, and the Founding Fathers were on record against a standing army. The issue of permitting homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter, is therefore null and void as it applies to the Army.


Following from the above, I would support a religious based DA/DT policy. Though such a policy would appear to violate the First Amendment at face value, the policy would permit an individual to opt out of the unconstitutional service and thus more closely adhere to the Constitution by not participating in said unconstitutional service.


After all, we can't have people dropping to their knees to pray in the middle of a battle.


I was under the impression that it is common for a dying man, wounded in battle, to pray to either God or his mother.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 21 2013, 8:45 pm

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.


Than what is the basis of your accusation for calling me homophobic? What evidence did I offer you? Is homophobia determinant upon support of DA/DT? By that logic, I'm tocophobic since I'm in agreement with my company's policy to not take pregrant women caving. Remember, you made the accusation, which was irrelevant to the discussion. I will admit I should've ignored it. 


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."


You're ignoring the principle of contracts at the expense of private property. Contracts provide for the exchange of private property within voluntary associations. If the principle of a contract is undermined or damaged than so too will the principle of private property. If an offending party can ignore the terms of a contract without consequence, than private property is unduly obtained and the contract-abider has been turned into a slave for the transgressor.


The Federal Government is the biggest contract holder of them all and Northern Factions, prior and post Civil War, violated the Constitution. First, (as Jefferson Davis indicates in his Farewell Address to Congress) by nullifying the Fugitive Slave Clause, which was an agreed upon provision in the Constitution; and secondly, by forcing involuntary association and war upon Southern States. The 13th Amendment is ironic, because the Union supposedly fought a war to "end slavery", yet forced the Southern States into an unwanted association under a government from which they withdrew their consent. Add to that, the Union claimed the Southern States couldn't secede, but once defeated, the Union claimed the Southern States wouldn't be let back into the Union (an acknowledgement that they left) unless these States ratified the 13th Amendment. I don't find a viable contract to be based on coercion, involuntary association, and threats to deny representation.


Furthermore, when the Government is permitted to violate its public contract, then political entrepreneurs will appeal to the Government, as an arbitrator of disputes, to release them from private contracts without consequence to themselves, but with undue burden to the other party. Such favoritism permits rampant theft and redistribution of wealth in favor of the political entrepreneurs. 


 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Mar. 22 2013, 10:05 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 21 2013, 7:52 pm

>Returning to discrimination, do you support children participating in the military? The argument can be made that all taxpayers should have access to and be able to participate in public programs, the military being one such program. Children are taxpayers, as a child pays taxes on purchased goods.
Some of us, as children, were also paying income taxes.  I started filing about age 10 or 11.


 


Sidenote:  What's interesting is that the ProRegressives complain about discrimination, but they love doing it via their income tax system - favoring one group but harming another.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Mar. 22 2013, 11:17 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 21 2013, 7:52 pm

>I was under the impression that it is common for a dying man, wounded in battle, to pray to either God or his mother.
Praying before/during/after battle is also very common.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Mar. 22 2013, 11:21 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 21 2013, 7:52 pm

>Following from the above, I would support a religious based DA/DT policy. Though such a policy would appear to violate the First Amendment at face value, the policy would permit an individual to opt out of the unconstitutional service and thus more closely adhere to the Constitution by not participating in said unconstitutional service.
As in "conscientious objectors"...


Also, those that serve in uniform often give up some of their religious freedoms, like wearing religious articles on top of their uniforms, having to work on the Sabbath, etc.  We still choose to join, but know those limitations up front.

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Mar. 23 2013, 7:58 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 21 2013, 7:52 pm

>

>  These dilemmas are reconciled simply by acknowledging the elephant in the room, which is the unconstitutionality of a standing army. While the U.S. Constitution provides Congress the Power to create rules and regulations, such as DA/DT, for land and naval Forces, the Constitution does not permit or provide for a standing army, and the Founding Fathers were on record against a standing army. The issue of permitting homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter, is therefore null and void as it applies to the Army.

>
Article 1 section 8 does give congress the power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.  It doesn't say that the Army must be disbanded after two years and if i recall my history the two years was for the period of enlistment for enlisted soliders.  Also later on in section 8 congress has the power to provide and maintain a Navy meaning reguardless of how you interpret the army statement American can have a standing military meaning that you are wrong.


T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 23 2013, 2:10 pm

It's strange that people get so sentimental about economics. 


With capitalism, for the first time, it's somewhat true that you had a system which allowed the underclasses to lift their heads up a little bit and make something of themselves. However, it should be noted that after feudalism, capitalism was the first system to come along. Additionally, capitalist society was not that way from the start. It took regulations.


In the earlier days of capitalism, before progressive reformers who set some regulations to stave off socialism, you read reports of women giving birth on the line in meat factories in capitalist countries. And you had people working as wage slaves, being paid in company money only good at the company store; often children.


Now, when you are talking about laissez-faire capitalism, in the style of Milton Freidman, you also have to realize that it was a system designed to be implemented by openly fascist dictators like Pinochet. It is extremely oppressive and in fact it had devastating results all throughout South and Central America, even if you don't count the genocides it was responsible for in Guatamala, etc.


Sociologists,  such as Duboise, have recorded for over a century, that where capitalism is generally suscessful, its success comes at the expense of people elsewhere. For example, for an affordable set of drawers in America, someone in Asia has to work as a slave.


Furthermore, it has shown itself not to be very compatible with the idea of natural rights. We are allowed to pretend we have certain rights until profits are involved. You know, you have a right to privacy until the job you are applying to demands a genetic screening, all because they have to pay a private insurer for your health insurance. That's an example of invasion of privacy that can be eliminated by a single-payer health system.


I would offer that "generally alright" is unacceptable, because generally alright means conditions are horrible for some people even if they are alright for you or others. It's just fine to try new things in order to make improvements. It doesn't matter what the founders of America wanted. A lot of them were horrible people by today's standards. Moreover, they are dead. We are alive now and we should have what we want.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 23 2013, 3:59 pm

Article 1 section 8 does give congress the power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.  It doesn't say that the Army must be disbanded after two years and if i recall my history the two years was for the period of enlistment for enlisted soliders.  Also later on in section 8 congress has the power to provide and maintain a Navy meaning reguardless of how you interpret the army statement American can have a standing military meaning that you are wrong.


http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm


I recommend reading Federalist Paper #41, provided in the link above, written by James Madison - the father of the Constitution. Madison distinguishes a Navy, a militia, and a standing army from one another. The Constitution also distinguishes an Army, a militia, and a Navy. One cannot make the argument, with any ligitimacy, that a Navy and a Standing Army are equatable, as the Constitution (and Madison) specifies maintaining a Navy, not an Army or a Militia. One should note the contrast between maintaining a Navy versus a two year limit on funding. While it is true that funding can be renewed, the Constitutional terminology of "term" implies a limited and finite period, as opposed to a Standing Army that would require unlimited funding over an indefinite time. If such were the case, the Constitution should've abandoned the terminology of "term" in favor of "maintaining" as was done with the Navy.


Madison argues at length against standing armies and points to the safe guards, such as a limited term for the Appropriation of Funds, within the Constitution against a standing army. Again, Madison, in no uncertain terms, says that a Navy and the Union (of States) itself negates the need for a standing army. 

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 23 2013, 8:21 pm

Additionally, capitalist society was not that way from the start. It took regulations.


Capitalism, ala the free market, comes with built in regulations. Artificial regulations, expediences imposed by government decree, create false indicators across the market and burden the economy. Cyprus is an example. The government intervenes in the economy by creating the artificial regulatory of insured deposits. The depositors, knowing their deposits are insured, permit the banks to be reckless with the deposits. The government is forced to guarantee the depositors, and complete the self-fulfilling prophecy. Government regulations either guarantee the problem that's trying to be avoided or create other problems as a secondary consequence.


In the earlier days of capitalism, before progressive reformers who set some regulations to stave off socialism, you read reports of women giving birth on the line in meat factories in capitalist countries. And you had people working as wage slaves, being paid in company money only good at the company store; often children.


Progressive reformers don't grasp the concept of saving or patience. When an inventor creates a machine, he can't predict all the consequences of his invention. It takes time: for the consequences to manifest; to devise new and adequate methods to compensate for undue consequences; and to save for investing in these methods. The Pro-regressives had two options. The productive option would have been to devise market innovations (additional goods and services) to solve the inconveniences of the industrial revolution, which would have further expanded the economy. The other option, which was chosen, was to campaign for market manipulation by government intervention and artificial expediencies - socialism.


Children have been working since the dawn of man. Capitalism creates an abundance of wealth and inclusive to that wealth is time. Capitalism has permitted enhanced productivity for the individual, whose children become free to pursue their own productive (wage earning) interests. 


For example, for an affordable set of drawers in America, someone in Asia has to work as a slave.


The individual is not a slave if the relationship is voluntary. Also, what may be considered a low wage in one country may be of an abundance in another. A single currency can hold or even gain different values across countries, especially if it is stable when compared to government mandanted currencies that are susceptible to fractional reserve banking. For example, bitcoin, a digital currency, is gaining incredible value against world fiats. 


Furthermore, it has shown itself not to be very compatible with the idea of natural rights. We are allowed to pretend we have certain rights until profits are involved. 


An owner has a right to do with his property as he pleases. An employee is an owner of his body and is effectively leasing his body/services out for a price. The employee creates a voluntary contract with the employer, and is free to end his servies at any time. 


You know, you have a right to privacy until the job you are applying to demands a genetic screening, all because they have to pay a private insurer for your health insurance. 


Don't forget those "heroic Progressives"... they petitioned for government regulations that create burdens for the private insurer, who must then pass those burdens (genetic screening) onto the insured. 


It doesn't matter what the founders of America wanted. A lot of them were horrible people by today's standards.


Today's standards are quite perverted. 

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 23 2013, 8:24 pm

fireproof, what would a leader have to do, all the various derees and actions undertaken, to be considered a dictator? 

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 23 2013, 9:58 pm

@Lone Palm:


Too much to grab in a quote, I'll assign numbers to each of your responses, if you don't mind:


1.) "Free market" capitalism as you describe it is not someting America has really ever had. For starters, the ones in Congress who call themselves "free market" capitalists, Newt Gingrich for example, are the ones taking the biggest handouts. It's just that they hand the money in the other direction. So not theoretical, but really existing "free market" capitalism is actually quite a bit more like State Capitalism. The only built in fail-safes are for the banks and the oil companies, etc., "the masters of society," as we've seen. Their risk of doing business is 100% socialized; their profits are all private.


2.) Some progressives were regressives in a sense, some of them were conservatives. And many of them on both sides of the isle were pretty horrible. But "pro-regressives" makes this conversation a bit less mature than what it deserves. But I'll go on:


Socialism was cropping up all over the western world. Hoover runs the economy into the toilet with deregulation and further in with even more. People are on the streets everywhere, mad as hell. Finally, election time comes around and the people put somebody in the White House who will do what they are asking for. And it should be pointed out that what they are asking for is a fair society. Wealth was never supposed to become so concentrated that the working class became absolutely disposable. That was one of the problems with "free market" capitalism, which, it should be said, left alone leads to at least as little freedom as unregulated "free communism," or has in every instance.


The progressives staved off a communist uprising through creating more evenness in society. Some of them were Democrats under Truman who started the Cold War against Socialism.


Secondly, capital "S" Socialism is a a phase in transition to Communism. We've never experienced it here. 


What you gave is a complete BS answer.


3.) Lincoln himself, a Republican, referred to some types of labor as wage slavery and thought it needed to be ended. If there's no other work to be had, and you pay someone less than what it takes to live off of or barely enough to scrape by if they work excessive overtime, it is a type of slavery.


4-5.) Again, it's not nearly as compatible with the idea of natral rights as a single-payer system would be. It represents an invasion of privacy that doesn't happen in that sort of system.


6.) Oh are they? So the idea that personhood only includes white males is somehow less perverted? 

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 23 2013, 10:12 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 23 2013, 8:24 pm

>

>fireproof, what would a leader have to do, all the various derees and actions undertaken, to be considered a dictator? 

>


defining first:



A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.
A person who tells people what to do in an autocratic way or who determines behavior in a particular sphere.

I dictator is basically someone who acts, unopposed or not enough opposition, to force their way, usually against the will of the people that are governed or to their destruction.


Now, I have the feeling that you will again bring up Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, martial law and other things. Ok, that starts towards dictatorship, so you probably have a point. Like I said, I am still reading so I haven't made up my mind except to say, the Civil War was a big mess with two sides acting superior and engaging each other in destructive means to prove their point. If the South was so right, there was no need to attack Fort Sumter.

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