@Aedes,
Aedes;19924 wrote:Modern liberals since at least FDR (but perhaps all the way back to abolitionism) have been vastly different than libertarians.
Libertarianism is one of the most conservative of all American political schools -- it regards the Constitution nearly as religious dogma and rejects any modern reinterpretation of Constitutional provisions; it rejects federalism (remember THAT debate from the Constitutional convention??); it rejects any sort of federal regulatory authority, including taxation; and some still favor local militias rather than a national military. It's a political school that's still living in the Adams administration.
From a libertarian perspective, what one might call 'modern reinterpretation of the constitutional provisions' is in fact blatent violation of the letter and spirit of the constitution. And lest we forget, even if one absolutely opposes everything stated in the constitution one ought - unless one favors some completely a-democratic system - to respect the concept of a constitution in principle: as a basis for the lawful authority of a consentual government. What meaning does a constitution have if it's viewed as a 'living document' that can be reinterpreted at will to mean something utterly contrary to what it was intended to mean when written? The people in favor of the 'living document' conception like to claim that their opponents are resistance to neccessary changes and are overly dogmatic, etc. Bullocks! The constitution admits of ammendment, just not wanton and a-democratic 'reinterpretation.'
A strict constitutionalist does not reject federalism per se. He rejects the extension of federal authority beyond its constitional limits. Today in the U.S., the federal government is so far beyond those limits, it can't even see them in the distance any longer - sky's the limit. The most basic principle of the constitution is the seperation of powers, not only within the federal government but between the federal and state governments. Yet somehow adherence to that principle puts a fellow on the political fringe. It is no less essential than the first ammendment, or any other provision that's far less controversial these days.
As for being stuck in the Adams administration, I'd rather be unfashionably in his company than in the company of Goldman, Exxon and Haliburton.
