Free Allegiance Forums

SharpFish wrote:QUOTE (SharpFish @ Oct 9 2011, 12:37 PM) Well, not really. I didn't say you would do these things I merely pointed to what a Libertarian do. Fact is that Libertarianism is the dumbest political "philosophy", if it can even be granted that distinction, that ever existed.

It does have its drawbacks, but coupled with another philosophy it isn't bad... much better than following the policies of a "liberal" or "conservative" with no adjoining libertarian philosophy.

SharpFish wrote:QUOTE (SharpFish @ Oct 9 2011, 12:37 PM) The distinction makes no sense to me,probably because I'm not american - and I don't mean that in a flattering way. somehow you lot have allowed yourself to be conned in to the idea that there some sort of qualitative difference between the "federal" government and the "state" government. That and your obsession with the $#@!ing stupid "constitution".

Why would a state government be less oppressive than a federal government - because it serves/controls a smaller population? Well by that measure, in the UK here we have about one sixth of the population of the US as a whole, does that mean I'm six times as free as you are? No, that would be ridiculous.

But while you're all bleating about "states rights" and similar worthless garbage the corps and their lobbyists are turning you into mandatory, contractually guaranteed, "consumers". Not voters, not citizens, just a belly with wallet. I couldn't have invented a better con if I'd set my mind to it.

The simple answer is there is 0 reason that a state government would be less oppressive than a Federal government. Some will be very oppressive, others will be less so. However this gives people the choice to gravitate towards the choice that they most closely identify with.

Think of it this way, with a minimal Federal government, there are now 50 options for you to choose from to pick a state that is close to your ideals. With a massive Federal government, those laws are the laws of all 50 states... you cannot escape them if you disagree with them, which cuts down on your choice.

That is why some of us are such ardent defenders of the Constitution, it it in place to prevent the Federal government from being overbearing on its population. "One Size Fits All" legislation is the dumbest thing ever... best to let the individual 50 states legislate on matters that are closer to their populace's needs. The Federal government should only ensure that the states are not violating its citizens rights with said laws... as allowed by the Constitution.

I am not sure if that makes it more sensible to you or not.

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Oct 9 2011, 03:44 PM) It does have its drawbacks, but coupled with another philosophy it isn't bad... much better than following the policies of a "liberal" or "conservative" with no adjoining libertarian philosophy.

Well no, quite the opposite. At least default liberalism and conservatism - no matter how much I disagree with the latter and how wishy-washy I find the former - are logically consistent. Libertarianism isn't. Or at least, not unless you're awesomely wealthy.

QUOTE The simple answer is there is 0 reason that a state government would be less oppressive than a Federal government. Some will be very oppressive, others will be less so. However this gives people the choice to gravitate towards the choice that they most closely identify with.[/quote]

That is a fine example of the triumph of abstraction over reality.

How many Americans do you know who have emigrated to the UK for the sake of better healthcare? There are some! I even know a few. Of course, that was not the only thing that made the decision - having a job helped, having family contacts helped. Knew this guy who presented as an L.A. gangbanger once, even walked with the fake limp, he left after a couple of years.

Fact is,most people WON'T move, because all their cultural identity and reinforcement is there. They have such unfashionable, and indeed un-Libertarian, ideas as a sense of social responsibility, a concern for their neighbours, a sense of right and wrong, family ties. So they won't go. If they're active, they'll try to change things, and if they're passive, they'll just surrender. Either way, what will NOT happen is some sort of population flow from state to state, no more than you see between France and Germany.

And even this assumes we're talking about people who have the means, which many don't. It's one thing to pick up sticks as an unattached 20-year old, and another as a 40-year old with several kids and a mortgage.

So that's just another pie-in-the-sky solution. It's not realistic, it won't happen. It will never be more than a tiny minority that chooses migration over adaptation. So the idea of some sort of "market" of states laws is a complete fiction.

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Oct 9 2011, 05:44 PM) Think of it this way, with a minimal Federal government, there are now 50 options for you to choose from to pick a state that is close to your ideals. With a massive Federal government, those laws are the laws of all 50 states... you cannot escape them if you disagree with them, which cuts down on your choice.

That is why some of us are such ardent defenders of the Constitution, it it in place to prevent the Federal government from being overbearing on its population. "One Size Fits All" legislation is the dumbest thing ever... best to let the individual 50 states legislate on matters that are closer to their populace's needs. The Federal government should only ensure that the states are not violating its citizens rights with said laws... as allowed by the Constitution.

And sadly, the Constitution has been shat on over and over and over again since it's inception. Bigger and bigger government ftl.

Sundance_ wrote:QUOTE (Sundance_ @ Oct 9 2011, 04:08 PM) And sadly, the Constitution has been shat on over and over and over again since it's inception. Bigger and bigger government ftl.

A fantastic example of totally failing to get it.

SharpFish wrote:QUOTE (SharpFish @ Oct 9 2011, 06:35 PM) A fantastic example of totally failing to get it.

It was meant to be a history lesson for the non-US members on how the government expanded to what it is now, leading to the erosion of the individual states' rights.

Sundance_ wrote:QUOTE (Sundance_ @ Oct 9 2011, 04:50 PM) It was meant to be a history lesson for the non-US members on how the government expanded to what it is now, leading to the erosion of the individual states' rights.

Well then I refer you to a basic history of technology, with special attention to gunpowder, railways and electricity. Yeesh.

SharpFish wrote:QUOTE (SharpFish @ Oct 9 2011, 07:01 PM) Well then I refer you to a basic history of technology, with special attention to gunpowder, railways and electricity. Yeesh.

I clicked every character in your post. Even the periods. I didn't find a link!

Am i the only one who did read that CAMARO WANTS MORE TAXES?

If you want a government to be able to operate, and sponsor public programs, it needs money. Tax is an effective means of getting money. Everyone pays for the public services and protection that the government offers.


People who want 0 tax, are actually anarchists who have no idea how anything works.

lexaal wrote:QUOTE (lexaal @ Oct 10 2011, 11:23 AM) Am i the only one who did read that CAMARO WANTS MORE TAXES?

Where did I say I wanted more taxes?

I said that the Federal government needs to be vastly reduced in scope (and lower Federal taxes) and allow the States to fill in the void left by the Feds.

The net effect should be around the same taxation nationwide.