I was wondering
why, suddenly, people cared about what libertarians thought about stuff. That explains it.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 3rd, 2010 at 11:12 am
Strangely, I agree with Newsweek. Libertarians are only ever popular with the out of power party. The put all this effort into talking about how much they like libertarian ideals. This lasts up until the second they actually win majority and then libertarians are back to being crazies again.
In the 2008 cycle, it was all about the Liberaltarians. In 2010, it was all about the Tea Party. Neither side is going to do anything more than lip service to limiting government power over anything.
As to Loesch’s assertion that it’s ridiculous to think conservatives Evangelicals want the government involved in charity, all I got to say is:
“Office of Faith-based Initiatives”
December 3rd, 2010 at 11:45 am
When the .gov is handing out jelly beans, it seems unfair that only socialist organizations get to fill their pockets with them, hence the OoFbI.
When the .gov stops handing out jelly beans, the socialist organizations will stop doing whatever they were doing with those jelly beans, and the conservative christians will continue handing out privately contributed jelly beans to those in need.
December 3rd, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Speaking as a libertarian and a conservative Christian, I want the .gov out of the business of handing out jelly beans entirely. Charity was traditionally the church’s roll in society. Without it, all the church can do is build buildings for its ever increasing “worship experience” spectacles.
I’d also give up on the .gov being involved in a whole host of social issues too (except abortion). So good luck with the playing libertarians against Christians, I think the Christians (at least the ones I know) are learning that .gov is not their friend, regardless of who is in power. We’re ready for less of it.
December 3rd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
The Media is saying, “Hey, lets You and Him fight!”
December 3rd, 2010 at 1:58 pm
You can rationalize and justify anything with religion. Religion: it’s what excuses you from responsibility.
December 3rd, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Oh so clever MrSatyre. Yes, rationalization through religion is exactly what Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did to justify their mass murders.
Seriously, human beings are good at using just about anything to rationalize their behavior. The only people who do not rationalize their behavior are sociopaths.
Libertarians and social cons should agree on at least this one thing: Our number one priority should be to get back our state’s rights. Everything else can be fought out at the state level where it should be.
December 3rd, 2010 at 8:07 pm
States don’t have rights, they have powers. Only individuals have rights.
December 4th, 2010 at 1:12 am
Yes, let us argue about words and their meanings rather than turn our attention to the ever diminishing rights and powers of the people and the states.
(And what, pray tell is the difference between a right and a power? If the state has the power to tax or regulate internal business, does it not also possess the right to do so? And if a person has the right to remain silent, does he not also have the power to do so?)
December 4th, 2010 at 2:23 am
A right is the moral entitlement to be free from the use of force. A power is the legal authority to use force.
December 4th, 2010 at 5:21 am
And how can you have one without the other? Do I really have a right if I do not have the power to enforce it? And if I have the power to do something, but not the right, then the exercise of that power will bring consequences.
December 4th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Yes, you can have a right without the power to enforce it. That’s what happens whenever someone’s rights are infringe. If I were to say something like, “when black people were being lynched, their rights were obviously not being violated since they lacked the power to enforce them” that would obviously be ridiculous.
Conversely you can have powers without rights. Namely everything the government does falls under this category. Whatever powers they have are only their because we chose to give it to them and can be taken away whenver we choose to. If the government has a “right to tax” then that right can be infringed. This is how you get into the mental gobbledy-gook where lowering taxes is described as trying to oppress society.
From slavery to the welfare state, the assertion of rights to the government has been a rhetorical trick for infringing the rights of individuals by trying to frame the situation as a conflict between the competing rights of two parties rather than a decision by one group to infringe the rights of another group.
December 5th, 2010 at 12:36 am
I think I see the semantic breakdown here. You seem to be defining “rights” as inherent rights and “powers” as granted rights. Of course the government has the right to levy taxes for we have granted it that right. The right is not inherent and is revocable. Conversely, every person has the inherent right to own property, defend himself, to speak his mind, et cetera. Those are inherent (or endowed by his creator if you prefer) and irrevocable. That those inherent rights are sometimes infringed is inexcusable and the perpetrators punished appropriately.
December 6th, 2010 at 7:05 am
I don’t see it that way. A right is something that you have simply because you exist. A person has the right to free speech because he is a person. A right does not need to be given to you, it can only be taken away from you by force or coercion.
A power is something that you are given by another. the government has the power to tax, only because we the people have granted them that power. Powers can only be given, except that the power of force can be used to take other powers for oneself.
This is why so much effort was expended in the Constitution towards limiting the access that any one entity would have to the monopoly on force that would enable the government to use that power to take more powers upon itself.
When we talk about states’ rights, what we are really talking about is placing a limitation upon the powers of the federal government to exert power over state government. This prevents the people of one state from having their rights diluted and lost to the people of the other states. The closer that a government is to the people it governs, the less oppressive that government is.
December 6th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Smarter men than I have contemplated the rights of governments. The rights are usually in contrast to the powers of a higher government.
Declaration of Independence
Federalist #7
Federalist #31
Federalist #44