What does "libertarian" mean to you?

Well, I'm sorry, Boo but Jefferson in particular disagrees that the Constitution wasn't set up to be as adaptable as possible -- one reason it is such a short document. Have you read any state constitutions lately? They're a verbosity of complicated, buraucratic officiouness that they are almost laughable (pardon me while I at least snicker). I don't believe the authors of the Constitution had many overt flaws (other than a perchance for too many cigars and too much booze) and they knew the document was a basis for what was to come. That's it is still here proves nothing other than there were few creative minds which got power in government since then. We've elected Presidents on image, more and more because they're marketed to us like pack of cigarettes (equally bad for your health, too).

Well, if that is your point, you may well be right. I would argue that amending the law to add a provision that requires adherence to the law seems redundant to me. If it is the law, should it not already be followed?

Take the discussion of a "balanced budget amendment" that bubbles up through Congress from time to time. The Constitution already requires the legislature to deliver a balanced budget each year. Since they already routinely ignore that straightforward legal requirement, is it reasonable to think that they would give any more heed to an amendment setting the same requirement?

In fact, along the lines of your comments above, John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) has introduced a bill before Congress called the Enumerated Powers Act, which would simply require each piece of new legislation submitted for consideration to list the specific, enumerated power within the Constitution which gives the federal government authority to do the thing the legislation would allow.

Seems a pretty reasonable, straight-forward idea. Funny how few politicians support it. (Unless you understand how little they are concerned with whether the Constitution empowers them to do the things they routinely attempt to do.)


Restore Enumerated Powers

Here's an article about it I stumbled on just now:
In praise of the Enumerated Powers Act

TW- Oh, what a lovely idea. Too bad that it probably will never pass. You don't really think that the politicians would want to be hampered by the Constitution!

H.L. Menchen:
The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.

I figures someone would fall for that bait, dys. Sorry if anyone thinks I insulted them and I'll have to admit that I was having a little fun. If it's an interpreted by anyone with no sense of humor, I guess they will feel insulted. I do withdraw the comment about rhetorical nonsense and replace it with rhetorical confusion. That's about as far as I'll budge. I view the Constitution as a rare old antique written by some great minds but has been severely bent out of shape many times by both ultra liberals and ultra conservatives manipulators. Even if there's no action involved and there's no amendment passed, it still doesn't change that if one doesn't like the way something is being done that's open only to the courts to interpret, it's time for changes. That there is anyone on this forum who believes he is a political genius and knows how those amendments should be worded, my hat's off to you. You're doing better than most of the two hundred and twenty-seven years of legislators have done. All that seems to be concentrated on is a Constitutional amendment to ban abortions. Is that all? I'm afraid so. To any frustrated politicians on these forums, please go out and run for office.

TW, I'm a proponent of Enumerated Powers. However, the biggest obstacle to legislative reform is that it must be enacted by legislators. Legal Reform faces an even tougher obstacle; most legislators are lawyers.



timber

Lawyers and tarts are the two oldest professions in the world. And we aim to please. - Horace Rumpole

libertarianism
Haven't you seen that test on whether you're a libertarian or not?
Well, I came out evenly divided, b/c I'm PERSONALLY a libertarian, but SOCIALLY, I'm not.I think some people need a lot of help from the government.

Re: libertarianism


Jean, I don't think being a libertarian means you don't believe in helping those in need, I think most libertarians just think that the government is not the ideal provider of that help.

Exactly- Before government put its big, greedy, wasteful hand into our pockets, there were religious and private social service agencies providing services to the poor. In my mother's generation, those agencies were there to help people out in a pinch, when there was a problem, to help tide things over until people got back on their feet.

That was also before "Welfare Recipient" became a permanent job description!

This is a very interesting sentence, not least of all because one hears or reads it from an American voice far more than from a speaker in any other country I know of.

It suggests that the 'simply lazy' comprise a large enough percentage of those receiving social assistance such that a revolution in social assistance criteria and organization is necessary - of course, the sentence itself doesn't suggest that much, but it is part of a package of notions spoken often enough such that we all understand that this sentence means the above and that it describes an accurate picture of things.

But I'm dubious for a number of reasons. First, have you noticed how information coming out of many US cities on the consequences of program reductions has been unclear and ambiguous? A politician will trumpet "We've reduced those on welfare by 40%! Huzzah!". Then, further down the newspaper page, someone will admit "Well, we aren't sure where they've gone, and yes, some are probably homeless now." Or a social worker will describe a single mother who now works three minimum wage jobs while her child is cared for by someone else, or while her teenage boys are without much guidance and care. Measuring these things is terribly elusive. Unless one is an accountant, of course.

Second, this is particularly an American debate and the terms of discussion in America appear greatly unique. What appears to be underlying this uniqueness is a broadly accepted, if unreflective, philosophic notion of the evils or perils of socialism. It seems to be a valuation of 'big government bad' and also a sort of Pavlovian stimulus-response notion of human behavior (labeled as 'common sense') - you will get less of what you punish and more of what you encourage. Yet I'm not at all certain either are true in the sense of being something one can measure, and are perhaps merely values and notions believed to be so because they get repeated often.

I mentioned Denmark earlier. But one might refer to other examles, such as any of the Scandanavaian countries or to Canada. All are well functioning states with a much higher acceptance of socialist ideas and policies. And all have much much lower crime rates and suicide rates than does the US.

I think it most unfortunate that discourse and options within the US are so deeply constrained by a set of values parading as truths.

blatham- It is a very complex situation. There HAS been a definite change in American society since I was a kid. I have seen it on the streets, in the newspapers, the schools and the workplace. The "rugged individualist"of yesteryear, has been replaced by a softer, more immature society, who looks to others, including government, to take care of their needs.

What I AM seeing, and applauding, is a work ethic that is shown by many immigrant Asian groups that have come to the US in the last few decades. Mom and Pop work long hours at their little business. Grandpa is sometimes there, and the kids help out after school. They are not afraid of hard work, and they are not looking for handouts.

I would bet that in a generation or two, these folks will be an integral part of a productive American society, the kids will go to college, and they will have reenacted the "American Dream".

I think that many American citizens have forgotten that it was those kinds of people, the ones where their helping hands was at the end of their own arms, that made America great!

Actually most of what blatham called "socialist ideas" isn't seen here in Europe under that label: especially some conservative parties have such in their programs.

Hmmm.. Interesting comment.. For 1999 the rate of suicides in the US per 100,000 people was 18.9. For the same year the rates were 35.5 in Austria, 32.5 in Switzerland, 29.9 in Denmark, 27.8 in Germany, 27.7 in Sweden, 22.9 in France, 21.4 in Japan, 19.3 in Poland and 17.2 in Canada.

http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/death-su.html

Phoenix

I understand this last post. But let me make two points.

First, I'll just repeat my direction of attention to those other states I mentioned. They continue to make their systems work just fine. So there is something else going on here than 'soft' social programs.

The argument I think you are making speaks not so much to social programs for the 'needy', but rather to the irony of affluence. Where our parents worked very hard so that their kids could have a better and easier life, those kids then are not pressed by the same necessities. Here in Vancouver, we have had over the last two decades, a huge influx of folks from Asia such that nearly 50% of the city and nearest suburbs are now of Asian descent. Some are the sort you mention - incredibly hardworking and disciplined. But many who have come with great wealth from Hong Kong are just like kids here, 'spoiled, for lack of a better word.

There is also, I'd submit, a tendency for folks your and my age to bemoan or denigrate the present and to view the past with a particular coloration - as being rather more heroic. The evidence for this is rather easy to come by in what humans have been writing for about three thousand years, where we see this theme is really surprisingly common....'kids just don't respect traditions or their parents any longer and the golden time that was is going to hell in a handbasket.' The propensity for humans to form such a worldview is so common there is even a word for it, 'primitivism'. William Bennett is a prime example of this fallacious and insular sense of history.

blatham- Are you calling me an old fart!

"The youth of today dress and behave immodestly, have no respect for their elders, no regard for their culture, and no concern for their own future"
Socrates





timber

Damn...I was hoping my guess was right and that no one would check me...let me scout around...bowing, scraping, backing out door

Funny quotes, fishin'.

The Federal Statistical Office Germany provides the figures:
1955 - 19,7
1960 - 19,05
1970 - 21,25
1980 - 23,56
1985 - 22,62
1990 - 17,54
1995 - 15,78
1999 - 13,6
(from: Statistic Yearbook of The Federal Republic of Germany 2001, [(c) 2002] printed version. - http://www.destatis.de/e_home.htm )