Libertarian or Constitutionalist?

J

Jack 99

New member
This is a tough question and there's a lot of "grey area".

Here's how I see it: L(l)ibertarians are kind of a "no gubmint is good gubmint" bunch and advocate open borders, no immigration laws, no laws regulating dope, etc. (I registered as a Libertarian in front of a grocery store out of disgust with the Republicans but I'm really not a true-blue "libertarian").

I think a lot of people who THINK they're libertarians are actually Constitutionalists. Example: some libs have advocated on this board that we should get rid of building codes. Bad idea. In LA, building codes make perfect sense. The idea that some renter will choose to live in one apartment over another because the quality of construction is better in one place is absurd. Who can even judge that? Then comes the earthquake and BOOM, renters who chose to live in poorly constructed apartments are dead. That's great. In the middle of Montana, building codes make no sense whatsoever but in densely populated areas they are a necessity.

So this is clearly something LOCAL authority should control. I don't have any problems with that. If you don't want to deal with building codes, don't move to LA.

What I really resent is the Federalization of every d@mn thing under the sun. How did the Feds get involved in Education? Under what authority does the Fed Gubmint control you growing a plant, ANY plant, in your back yard and smoking the leaves? Where in the Constitution is there anything about regulating toilet flow? What's next, will we all be restricted to X number of squares per wipe?

If the Federal government would just stick to the powers it was granted under the Constitution, that would be plenty "libertarian" for me. Local control is really what it's all about. I know they say you can't fight City Hall. Well, that's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You think its easier to fight City Hall, or the Federal Gubmint? Who do you think is more apt to listen to a small block of voters, your local sheriff, mayor and county commissioners, or your local representative of the Federal monstrosity?

We don't need to eradicate all government, we just need to bring everything down to the lowest level possible and get the Feds out of every miniscule little issue. That's really what the Constitution is about.
 
Good post, but there's a little more to it, as I see it: the LP's basic appeal is "we won't hassle you, according to the Constitution." The Constitutionalists say, "This country needs real leadership, according to the Constitution."
 
Could someone please direct me in a directon where I may find out more about the Constitutionalist party? The more I read about the libertarian party, the more I realize I don't agree with them about much except firearms.
 
There is NO WAY that I'm a Libertarian. Constitutionalist? That's me. I want the strict interpretation of the constitution. Building codes are appropriate, IMHO. I don't want to be living next to someone in Dade County who doesn't have a house up to code during the next Hurricane. There is no question that the government should keep it's nose out of classroom curriculums, and the burgeoning bureacracy of government is more harm than good. I think the libertarian party is way too extreme. Just take the libertarian purity test, and I bet most of the libs on this board will not like what they see. Government should be of the the people, for the people, and by the people, but it cannot be eliminated or anarchy will rule. Just my thoughts...
 
I have to admit, I'm a true-blue libertarian. If your multi-level apartment building collapses in an earthquake, and there was proof that the builder disreguarded known safegards, then ENGLISH COMMON LAW prevails, and we are afforded our rights in court. The same way as if your car blows up from being hit from behind, or if somthing is passed off as genuine, and it turns out to be a fake. Don't ever forget the legacy of Common Law that we inherited from those dastardly brits. It really used to be a good thing. I don't think that libertarians are against building codes though, as long as they are locally controlled. Just my opinion.
 
I cannot be a libertarian. For one, I do not think that legalizing drugs solves anything. Something that alters a persons state of mind is not something that I think should be supported. Also I cannot support abortion at all. I looked at the Constitutionalist platform and I agree with almost all of their stances, I am going to look into them some more.
 
Glad I'm not the only one.

Party affiliations (like "Democrat" or "Republican") aren't so much demonstrative of a certain philosophy -- they're more like voting blocks. "Liberal" and "Conservative" come closer, but those labels, as generally spun by the media, are more social in nature.

I consider myself a "Constitutional Conservative." I favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution, all else being left to the states.

Last time I checked the Constitution didn't say anything at all about building codes, legalization of drugs, or abortion... hence they are issues to be decided by individual states.

That's the beauty of our country and our Constitution (as originally envisioned) -- if I don't like the building codes of Kalifornia, or the abortion laws in Utah, or the drug laws in Alabama, it is my right and privilege to move to another state where I do like the laws... or the lack thereof.
 
I think some are missing the point about libertarianism.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Building codes are appropriate, IMHO.[/quote]

In making law, it doesn't matter what your opinion is. It matters what the Constitution says.

A law can be a great idea; moral, just; completely favored by 100% of the population, but if the government's power in the area is not specifically authorized in the Constitution, the law is void. It is not a law. If you think a law is a good idea, but there's no Constitutional authorization for it, then there is a process for creating authorization. It's called a constitutional ammendment.

Now, we know building codes are not authorized by the federal Constitution. If they are specifically authorized by your state constitution, then you either work to change your state constitution, or you live with them.

------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
 
Don't mistake libertarian for anarchist.

Can a government exist without threats against the people?

Do not be fooled into thinking a call for government to not be involved in certain matters mean there should not be government.

Government (should) exists to protect the smallest minority, minority of one, from the initiation of force, and even defensive use of force (self-defense) must be judged properly to be so. This does not mean the govt. should be initiating/threatening force by itself.

Battler.


Battler.
 
Here is where I get my stance on the issues I listed above, A Right can only be a Right if it doesn't infringe opon the Rights of someone else. I've volunteered with a fire dept. for four years and in that time I saw a lot of people who were infringing upon the rights of others just because they had gotten stoned and did something stupid. It was stuff they never would have done sober, so I do not believe that they have the right to get stoned. Also now that I am in the Marines as an 03, I do not want anyone that is going to be covering my butt to be high when bullets are flying, I think that them being stoned would make my chances of survival diminish. As to abortion, as soon as a child is concieved, it becomes a living being, it may not be a fully funtional being yet, but it is still living, and no man has the right to take anothers life just because that being is unwanted.



[This message has been edited by striker3 (edited July 17, 2000).]
 
Jack 99,

You know I believe you are completely 100% misguided with your support of building codes, but as others have mentioned building codes aren't a federal issue.

On the other hand they can become a local issue. So they would have no bearing on voting for a federal candidate but might on a local. I completely agree with you that local control is important, perhaps the most important single issue!

Remember on the federal level that the Constitution and Libertarian parties are the only two parties that take the Constitution seriously. A vote for either of them is a good thing.
 
Valdez,

Don't underestimate the Federal Govt. They're regulating your toilet flow, that's a building code isn't it? And don't worry, the way the Republicans are running the place, we'll have more Federal building codes soon enough.
 
If the Libertarians could put up someone who could give hard answers to hard questions in a didactic and unequivocal manner, such as Alan Keyes, they'd have a pro-active, affirmative influence on the nation. As it is, they are only implacable on one issue: the removal of coercion from political life. This is laudable.

My problem stems from the fact that the nation needs, now, more than ever, a leader to exhort us to our fullest potential and break the cycle of addiction to mediocrity that has turn our nation into a squalor of drugged virtual reality, irresponsible sex, venereal disease, and disposable infants.

I have yet to hear an LP candidate make any moral judgement on these things, other than to say that the government shouldn't be involved.

The Presidency is about the "bully pulpit." A leader leads by example, and does not coerce or weasle people into action. I have yet to hear the LP tell anyone anywhere why recreational drug use is wrong, why irresponsible sex is wrong, and why abortion is wrong.

These things ARE everyone's business, and discrimination against sick behavior is not persecution.



------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!
 
Striker3 -- I can somewhat understand your point of view, but you're walking a dangerous path; you seem to be mixing Rights with consequences, and you're forgetting plain ol' *stupidity*.

Try this one on for size: your stated opinion is that people shouldn't have a Right to get stoned because they might do something stupid; how is that different than doing away with the 2nd Ammendment because somebody might hurt somebody with a gun?

I'd have to say that any and all *have a Right to get stoned* (pursuit of happiness... if that's what you want to call it), but that Right does not excuse them from the consequences of their actions.

With regards to your particular circumstances... the issue of whether or not an individual has a *Right* to get stoned is secondary to an individual's *choice* to join the military -- which I would expect to have slightly different requirements. Ex: I *chose* to accept a job that required some rather extreme security clearances, and as such I was immediately restricted in my ability to travel to certain countries. Good thing? I'd say so. Were my Rights restricted? Yes -- but it was *MY CHOICE*.

Same thing when joining the military... you want to serve your country, do so in an appropriate fashion -- and I don't think that stoned would be considered appropriate. (BTW, isn't drug use covered in the UCMJ?)

As far as I'm concerned... go ahead and get stoned... but when you break into my house and I rearrange one or more of your vital organs, don't expect that "I wouldn't have done it if I weren't stoned" will be any kind of an excuse or explanation in the wrongfull death suit.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Munro Williams:
If the Libertarians could put up someone who could give hard answers to hard questions in a didactic and unequivocal manner, such as Alan Keyes, they'd have a pro-active, affirmative influence on the nation.

[/quote]

Slightly off topic, but Mr. Keyes has always impressed me and though I do not agree with him a 100% (more like 95%), I'd damn sure vote for the man over any of the other bozos. Just wish he had a real shot.
 
AndABeer - If you were truly a principled person, as the definition is ubiquitously suggested on this website, you would write-in Mr. Keyes for president regardless of his chances.

I take comfort from your qualifier, then, that you may be as unprincipled as me.

------------------
Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. -- Ambrose Bierce
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> At the 1999 national convention, the [Constitution]party narrowly adopted a controversial change to its platform's preamble which declared "that the foundation of our political position and moving principle of our political activity is our full submission and unshakable faith in our Savior and Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ."[/quote]
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
Uh...no thanks.


Not that I have anything against Christianity, but there are a lot of other religions being practiced (or, in some cases, unpracticed) in this country. The words "unshakable faith in our Savior and Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ" have no place in the politics of the US President. Maybe at his dinner table while saying grace, but that's it.
(flame away)

[This message has been edited by CindyH (edited July 20, 2000).]
 
But how would you feel about a political party that adopted the resolution "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top