What does "libertarian" mean to you?

Having studied and taught Social Work, worked as a Social Worker and having been political activ in Social Work related subjects, I've an opinion, which differs a little bit from yours.
But that's not the (main) theme here - sorry, didn't want to start a discours on that.

Au1929,
...In my view, you conducted yourself like a gentleman. If we don't challenge, where's the fun? And... the fact that you eventually said the same thing I did, in your own words, let's me know what an incredibly intelligent person you must be. :wink:

This has veered away into discussing interstate highways? I can see a small point in a debate of states versus federal constructing highways, or even private enterprise versus government constructing highways. I'd like to see some figures on who does the work more efficiently and at what cost. I doubt that there would be much of a difference. We have Cal Trans and the voters have validated the entity more than once. This shifting federal responsibilities to the states is relavent to another discussion but would make a debate on its own on all aspects of government. One thing -- when you transfer responsibility to the states, that will enlarge the bureaucracy within the states. Not quite libertarianism which advocates no unneccessary government. There's where the bugaboo is -- who decides what parts of government is unnecessary? The Constitution has been interpreted to cover all services (and products if you want to consider dams and highways) of the federal government. Wouldn't libertarianism require some amendments to the Constitution? This would be the only way to counter the officiousness of all politicians.

Where does the Constitution say that the governemnt at any level is required to provide services of this nature? To my recollection the only thing that comes close is the provision that the Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. As a result of that the Federal Government can exercise authority over things like the Interstate highway system since it crosses state borders.

The fact that the Constitution says the Congress can do something doesn't mean they have to, should, or that they should take complete control of the issue. A driver's license is the state's way of telling you that you can drive on the public roads. They don't force you to buy a car and drive it daily though.

Maybe all the people who don't vote in the United States are frustrated libertarians and that is the only method they have of expressing their dissatisfaction.

(There was a joke once about an old grumpy man who went to the ballot box, having never studied the issues, and voted No, No, No, No, No, No.)

Roads and Highways are actually a pretty good specific item to look at. Who actually pays for them at what level and who does the work?

The Federal government sets construction standards, approves plans and largely funds the interstate system.

The States actually determine the need and location of the Interstates and do all the maintance on the Interstates and pays whatever the Federal government doesn't cover. They also have compete control over state highways which they sometimes get federal funds to assist.

The cities and towns have control over local roads and get some state and federal funds as well.

(The lower level you go here the lower the % of Federal Funds and higher the % of local funds.)

Almost all of the roads are bulit by private companies as contractors to the various levels of government except perhaps at the local level where some cities/towns have municiple employees that do that work.

Well, if you want to get to specifics... consider this. The relatively small area where I live has only one convenient access to the nearest large town. In t he next 3-4 years, whenever constuction is complete... large tolls will be enacted. The original bridge had a stipulation that once it was paid for, it couldn't have tolls again so the state designers decided to make it one way, and the new one, a tolled bridge going the other way.

It doesn't seem fair since the end result will be just one more lane in each direction. A foolish venture I wish I didn't have to pay for. If I were a Libertarian would I be pleased about this, or not?

I suspect not Piffka but I don't think that's really a matter of being a libertarian or not. I would hope people of any political leaning would not be happy with any government or private entity sneaking something like that through.

The federal oversight or interstate highways has to do with managing a complex infrastructure. The states cooperating in performing this efficiently leaves me with a lot of doubt. No, the Constitution doesn't specifically require a lot of things, it just doesn't forbid it. That's were the Constitution would have to be amended -- again, none of these services have been tested through the courts up to the USSC. Why is that?

I think the voting public does become frustrated with the authoritarianism just like they get frustrated with the authoritarian management of their companies (unless, of course, they are high enough up in management). Much of the frustration comes from the fact that they are the employers but are treated like employees. That doesn't mean if we individually had more power, we'd still have more confidence in the government agencies handling a certain aspect of our infrastructure better than a private enterprise. AmTrak is a good example.

If I told you how it was voted in through a strangely gerrymandered bloc you'd gnaw your knuckles. I was actually one of the first for the bridge, but not this plan or design. It is too annoying. The first and only Public-Private Partnership for the state. At first we were to pay the company, a Bechtel affiliate, directly. Now there is an intervening tolling entity.

The Republican legislator is for it, the Dem is against.

On the one hand, as a Libertarian (I think) I believe we should pay our way on the bridge. However, to be fair, both bridges should be each way and those who want the convenience and speed of a new interstate level bridge should pay for that going on a new bridge.

I apologize if I am bringing this down to too low a level, but I think this specific case might help determine this question of what is a Libertarian.

I suspect they don't get before the Supreme Court very often because the issue was settled (from a Constitutional standpoint) decades ago. The Supreme Court decided several of these types of cases over railroads back in the 1800s. (Illinois Central Railroad v Illinios in 1896 for example). I have never seen anyone argue that the Congress doesn't have the legal authority to be involved. Whether or not the should be involved in specific examples gets argued pretty often...

roger - Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I'd hoped to be.

I know that our states are not nations. I know that if we want to compare our states to political entities that are the most like them, then your example of the Cantons of Switzerland is a closer, better analogy. But that was not my purpose.

The reservation expressed was that separate states each building their own roads wouldn't work out well as a total system. I specifically chose an analogous situation where the differences between the entities was greater than that between our states; the nations of Europe.

I agree that the analogy is imperfect for the use to which you wish to put it. I hope you can see that yours is not the purpose I had in mind, and that for my purposes it works just fine.

The Constitution instructs us on this, though our current government seems blissfully unaware of that point.



No, libertarianism, at a minimum, would simply require reasserting the proper roles of government; those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. (At least that would be satisfactory to me.)

And yes, as you stated, this might logically necessitate larger state government (assuming state government did not likewise need downsizing and refocusing based on each state's constitution). But that's the way it's supposed to be. Those things the constitution does not specifically charge the federal government with doing, it is up to the states to decide whether they wish to do.

fishin' - Remember that at every level, we pay for the highway system. Then consider whether we get the most bang for our buck if that buck goes to Washington first and then comes back to the states, or simply stays in your state.

Some states get more, some states get less!

The Interstate Highway system and the US highway system - decision to make, widen, repair are decided at the Federal level with the states contracting out the services and overseeing construction. It seems that there has been a belief that the Ferderal is a government and the State is not. I don't have a vote on use of funds except at the municiple level. Yet, I still consider this to be government.

The Federal controls the municiple because it allows funds for approved projects, very few projects are undertaken without Federal funds to help.

Now, how did I know that fishin' would come up with the railroad precedence? Exactly why you aren't going to stop the federal government from performing these tasks without amending the Constitution. Prohibition was one very sour attempt to "fill in a hole" and we know where that led to. Would we have the excellent infrastructure (and don't start bragging that it's the best in the world because it isn't) without the Presidents and legislatures that did take these initiatives where private enterprise was either lagging or misusing their power (hence, the robber barons). I see that the push-and-pull between the private enterprise and government of a capitalistic society as quite workable. I'd like to see business (specifically corporations) be responsible and do a good job but unfortunately that doesn't always happen.

The conflict of interests in business is a problem -- I had this happen when I was a Lightolier distributor years ago and was successful in selling smaller construction jobs. When I tried to snag some of the larger jobs, it turned out I was competing against...Lightolier! I know, that's the cut throat part of business but it points out something I don't think anyone can argue -- business is often set up to be unfair.

Perhaps because you are smart enough to regonize the similarities between the railroads of yesteryear and the highways of today?

But.. If we were an entirely libertarian society there wouldn't be a need to amend the Constitution as it is right now because the populous wouldn't allow the Federal government to exert such power even if they are allowed to. Again, important to remember, you are coming at this from the perspective of what we have now and a conversion to a libertarian society. I have been posting in regard to how things would be if we had never been anything but...

BTW, with all the discussion of Interstate Highways and questions as to whether or not there would be roads; how did we get them? There was very little Federal involvement with roads until the Interstate Highway Act of 1956. Up until that point the only Federal rules were on highway sign markers. Didn't we have roads before 1956?

um was it not the original Post Roads that created the precedence?