Tuesday, March 5, 2013

For The Good of Society

Spent a lot of time on the road today. Still not sure if I will talk about what came of it but that's not why we are talking now. Part of the time I was listening to talk radio. Down in the hinter boonies we do not get talk radio so it was a nice break from my driving staples of NPR or country music.

In any case Laura Ingram was talking about something or another, marriage I think, and the phrase "the good of society" kept coming up. I got to thinking.

Many conservatives complain about how communists liberals want to tax this or regulate that to protect the children. However in the glass house of stone throwing some of those conservatives often of the very religious psuedo theocracy wanting variety flavor want to restrict drugs, gambling, private sexual behaviors, peoples chosen relationships or whatever "for the good of society." Most of these folks both right and left are well meaning and sometimes they are right. I don't think anybody would argue in favor of letting little kids go hungry or about the many benefits of heroine use. However that is not the point.

To me people wanting to use force of law as a way to restrict my rights and freedom are folks I have a problem with. If they have a legitimate point those folks can argue or persuade people to go with it but forcing them to do what you want is not acceptable. It doesn't matter if they are holding a copy of the communist manifesto, a Koran or a Bible. This is simply not something that should be condoned.

I urge you all to resist the desire to force your viewpoints onto others even though it is tempting. Sooner or later a sub group you fall into will be targeted. In my humble opinion thinking they get to boss others around but that others do not have the right to do the same thing to them when the shoe is on the other foot makes one a hypocrite.

Edited to include:

My intent here is not so much to discuss my socially liberal (though not without consequences) beliefs. The point I am trying to make is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Saying everybody should stay out of your homeschooling, raw milk, unlicensed/ improperly zoned business, religion as used in the most expansive possible way practices, guns and such but you can tell other people what substances they are allowed to partake in, how they can recreate and who they can spend their life with with is ridiculous. Conservatives telling others what to do to make a better society is equally offensive as liberals doing the exact same thing for the same reasons. It's the classic childlike everything I think is right and everything I do not like is wrong.


Archer Garrett said...

Drugs are bad, mmmkay. (But arguably a choice you should be allowed to make on your own).

Entitlement healthcare is bad too.

The combination is doubly bad when you have entitlement healthcare covering a user's poor choices.

If drugs are legalized AND overdose/drug use-related medical care is denied (or at least payment required up front), then I can probably live with that.

That scenario results in people dying in pools of their own vomit outside of Emergency rooms, though. I don't think our society is even close to accepting that.

Also, if Mom and Dad are cooking and using meth in their trailer (or McMansion - I'm equal opportunity), should that be legal, but their children be taken away (or are they charged with child endangerment)? I say most certainly yes.

Something can be legal, but the consequences need to be there as well.

Let's say Heroin, Meth, (or alcohol for that matter, I'm game), whatever is legal, but a DUI penalty is permanent revocation of license? Killing someone in a car wreck while you were DUI carries the penalty of death?

I'm probably gonna catch a lot of heat, and these are extreme examples, but my point is that with freedom comes responsibility.

And I'm not saying the current system is working by any means. Totally not.

Ryan said...

Archer, This takes us down a few interesting paths.

I am solidly not a fan of our dysfunctional health care system. It is the worst combination of private enterprise and government involvement I can think of. Moving on from that.

Child protection type law is very complicated. A situation has to be pretty bad IMO before the least bad option is to take kids away from their parents. Mom and Dad having a few pot plants is not that situation. Mom and Dad cooking meth in the trailer the family lives in is that situation. He should at least do it in a shack someplace else.

DUI is an interesting topic from a philosophical point. If Bob has 4 doubles then drives home uneventfully should that really be a crime? Yeah maybe he got pulled over by a cop who followed him for 3 miles till he found an excuse but he didn't T bone another car, get in a wreck or whatever. One could argue that DUI should not be a crime at all but should be a seriously aggravating factor in property damage or make any wreck causing injury either attempted manslaughter (if they don't die) or Murder 1 of they do.

You are right that responsibility is key. It is something I strongly believe in.

Anonymous said...

Would you have no restrictions on drugs? While I would agree to decriminalization of pot I think crack and heroin are bad enough to be illegal. Would you make it legal to buy all prescription drugs over the counter? If not it would be interesting to hear your explantion why I should be able to buy crack but not penicillin.

Ryan said...

@4:55. Correct, Make them all legal for consenting adults. Cigarettes, booze, double bacon cheeseburgers and super sized french fries ruin way more lives than hard drugs.

More to the point I do not believe drug laws are preventing anybody from buying or using said drugs. Even when we arrest users are we really making anybody's lives better? Furthermore the criminal enterprises it has funded (street gangs) and created (drug cartels) are very problematic.

I think if you could get oxy, crack, pot and heroine at Walmart it would defund massive criminal enterprises and the tax proceeds could be used for treatment and education.

Yes I think most (we do not need Bubba doing experiments with Smallpox in his basement, etc) medicines should be available over the counter.

Archer Garrett said...


Second half of what you said. Aggravating factor, much like "hard time for gun crime". A gun is legal and using it responsibly is encouraged, but if you abuse it, it's gonna hurt.

So yes, I would be fine with Bob's 4 doubles being legal, but DUI penalties being insanely steep.

I would also be fine with insanely low thresholds for DUI (.01 alcohol/ some sort of field blood/urine test for other drugs + a failed sobriety test), effectively outlawing drinking/smoking/snorting/injecting anywhere but home (or somewhere you are staying overnight).

to answer anon, if it was directed at me, personally I would vote against legalizing pot, but would not freak out if it was legal. Heroin/Crack/etc should not be legal, imo.

For the record, if the vote came up, I would vote to outlaw lotteries, gambling, drugs, abortion, and probably some other stuff, because it destroys societies. However I also realize that these are results, not causes, of a morally bankrupt society.

I also think that lotteries, gambling and drugs should be regulated on the state level.

So if I want to live in Utah where (assumedly) all these things would be outlawed, I can. If you wanna live in New Jersey (where it's legal), you most certainly can.

Abortion, on the other hand, is murder.

Also, anon, The only problem i have with OTC antibiotics (A/B) is the chance for misuse, resulting in extremely resistant strains of diseases.

I heard from someone that one of the reasons these A/B resistant diseases originate in 3rd world countries is because some (not all) mission groups go over there for a week and hand out A/Bs without providing proper followup.

So in closing, I believe in the states deciding for themselves if these things are legal. That would be my kind of libertarianism. If there are 50 different states choosing how to live their lives, I bet we could all find a place that tickles our fancy.

Oh yeah, and throw in some Articles of Confederation into my 50 unique states

Anonymous said...

Over the years the libertarian / anarchist philosophy has become more logical to me. I mean how do you justify supporting your own version of common sense limits on "immoral " behavior then discount somebody else's. Yes its more work having to use your brain to figure out where the line is on when the individual behavior affects others and infringes on their liberty but its better than where we are now.

Archer Garrett said...

7:43 - that's why I say, on the practical level, bolster states rights. I'd be willing to relocate somewhere that afforded me to live how I chose to and would support others to do the same. States could also experiment with their crazy ideas and others could see if it worked/failed without screwing up the whole nation.

Max said...

Archer- unfortunately those states are on the endangered list. Just when you think you are in one... BAM.

Archer Garrett said...

Max, agreed. We're all in hypothetical world at this point. Congress aint reading TSLRF.

Aesop said...

All law is a restriction on unlimited freedom. Always has been, always will be. That's precisely the point of writing them.

Drug legalization is the love child of the people who can't think three steps ahead. Okay, poof, all drugs are legal. So when someone spends all their money to get them, and is broke, addicted, and wants more anyway, what's the difference between robbing and stealing to support their habit then, and robbing and stealing to support their habit now? (Other than the additional 20 million addicts you'll create.)

And BTW, when you say drug problems won't be funded, exactly what mind-reading device have you developed to allow me, sitting at the front desk, to determine that somebody's problem is drug related before they get seen, tested, examined, and receive a $10,000 work-up first? You may as well posit the existence of warp drives and invisibility cloaks into your scenario at that point.

And about those nobody-got-hurt-DUIs...shouldn't we use the same standard for a drunk waving a loaded gun around? Is it all cool as long as they don't actually cap anybody? What if it's in front of your son's school? What if it's the teacher inside?

Or is it just possible that waving a loaded gun around is about as bright as driving a car while drunk on the same roads bicyclists, pedestrians, and schoolbusses travel, and therefore the simple act of getting in the car drunk, knowing that your reflexes and judgement are too f****d up to safely operate it, is the actual crime?

The founding fathers had a simple solution for all this, it was called voting. If we were still doing that, and abiding by the results, we'd be a lot better off than the current tyranny of a rogue judiciary creating fiat laws out of their hindquarters and overturning elections, a rogue bureaucracy creating fiat regulations because the congress is too busy ignoring the constitutional limits on their scope, and a rogue president spewing fiat executive orders, all of them with the regularity of a rabbit with diarrhea making pellets.

The solution to societal ills isn't to simply legalize everything. It's to see what the will of the people is, and those that come in second can either leave, or suck it up and obey. Anything else is merely a choice among disasters.

Chris said...

The political problem with putting pot legalization on the ballot is that it gets liberal stoners to turn out in droves to vote. They were low information voters but knew they wanted pot.

This was a factor in turning Colorado Blue. Massive outside investment and an incompetent state level GOP did not help.

I'm cool with legalizing marijuana, especially over a certain age (there is compelling research that marijuana can aggravate mental illness when the brain is still forming), but it does attract an element that hates guns and loves taxes.

Anonymous said...

When traveling, I use Diners, Drive Inns & Dives and Man vs Food as a guide about where to eat. And thus it was that I found myself at Jack n Grill restaurant for lunch (+1 recommendation), and noticed what looked like a doctor's office across the street. Then I noticed the name on the building was Dr. Ganja or some such and there was a marijuana leaf on the sign.

So I asked the waitress, is that place across the street what I think it is?

"It is," she said. "You get your prescription, and you can smoke up your whole paycheck and not even have to leave the parking lot."


Anonymous said...

Crap, sorry about that. Jack n Grill is in Denver.


Anonymous said...

"The only problem i have with OTC antibiotics (A/B) is the chance for misuse, resulting in extremely resistant strains of diseases."

And on the surface that sounds reasonable. But did you know you can buy as much antibiotics as you want to for your pets, or that farmers and ranchers buy it bu the barrel full for their animals, or that in 3rd world countries, including Mexico, you can simply buy it over the counter. It is only in the USA and Europe where the citizens are not trusted to buy medicine.

I have to say I believe it is odd that anyone would favor making crack legal and making antibiotics illegal. I have a similar reaction to making same sex marriage legal but not making polygamy legal. Or making it legal to abort an unborn child but making it illegal to "kill" an unborn child.

Ryan said...

@9:23, Archer is not (as per his comments) in favor of legalizing hard drugs. That is me.

riverrider said...

amen. thats what i have been preaching among the patriots these days. freedom for one means freedom for all. otherwise you're trading one tyrant for another.

Archer Garrett said...

But what is "Freedom"?

If states rights were robust and we had a much more anemic central governance, then people could choose their own "Freedom" by simply choosing their own state.

If a bunch of Libertarians up and decided to move to Vermont/Montana/wherever and vote a certain type of minarchist government in place, that would be awesome.

If every Mormon in America moved to Utah and set up some sort of theocracy, more power to em.

AND, if Kalifornia wants to implicate their own interpretation of an Orwell novel, then by golly, have at it. And they can crash and burn in a big ball of civil unrest and all the surrounding states can build a border fence on their Western Front (see how i worked book plug in?).

I think this is the only answer for EVERYONE to really be happy with their government (well except for Kalifornia...). It also has the added benefit of (assumedly) getting like-minded folks together.

Of course, this also Balkanizes the nation, but maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

But it's all wool sport-coats and cheap ties anyway - unless perhaps we colonize the moon (a la - a Heinlein novel).

Aesop said...


We had robust states' rights governance modelled for us some time back.

It resulted in a dozen mainly agricultural states legally subjugating a race of people in the most vile and cruel slavery imaginable, counting them on census rolls as 3/5ths of a person, and seeking to expand the franchise every time we added another state to the union. When that gambit failed, and democracy was set to upend their applecart, they took themselves hostage, and pretended that they were "just kidding" back in 1776. It didn't work out well for them after that, although it took nearly another century to pry their hands off the levers of legalized apartheid they clung to tooth and nail.

Maybe you've heard about this idyllic time of supreme states' rights somewhere in your travels.

One might also point out, purely anecdotally, that there are few outside the neo-Fascist movement who view that historical era with the fond nostalgia so gleefully bestowed upon it by their ilk, and suggest that one is generally known by the company they keep.

Archer Garrett said...


Talk down to me some more big fella.

As you said before, "The founding fathers had a simple solution for all this, it was called voting. If we were still doing that, and abiding by the results, we'd be a lot better off than the current tyranny of a rogue judiciary creating fiat laws out of their hindquarters and overturning elections, a rogue bureaucracy creating fiat regulations because the congress is too busy ignoring the constitutional limits on their scope, and a rogue president spewing fiat executive orders, all of them with the regularity of a rabbit with diarrhea making pellets."

We DO still vote. The voting population has voted in the people in the executive and legislative branches and they appointed the people in the judicial branch who uphold their laws. And they've been making the same choices, with only a few exceptions, for the past 100 years. small-govt/freedom-minded people are outnumbered and outvoted.

When the majority of the voting population vote for the people that we have now, how, pray tell, do we fix this?

I'd rather have 50 options, with the chance that somewhere will still be a bastion of liberty, than 1 central option that slowly grows larger and larger (and thusly more tyrannical).

Seriously though, if we can't respectfully exchange ideas, then this isn't worth my time. I try to refrain from bickering on the internet and if that's where this is going, then I'll just bow out all gentleman-like and let you folks have it.

Ryan said...

Gentlemen, Remember the saying "you can disagree without being disagreeable."

Ryan said...

I am a fan of states rights but to me that doesn't solve this issue.

The slavery issue is an extreme but valid point. I do not find states unnecessarily intruding on and regulating peoples private lives much more tolerable than the federal government doing so. The tyranny of the 51% is just as harsh coming from the state capital as from DC. Do people have less of a right to recreate how they want because they are a mile apart with a state border in between? Is raw milk somehow different in one place than another?

Archer Garrett said...


You're right. Rights are rights.

The point I'm trying to make is this:

If we had different states/regions with different styles of government (which we kind of have at this point - but they still have the overreaching central government), perhaps people could migrate to what form of government suits them.

As a libertarian, that'd put you around a bunch of people that want what you want out of life and that would be pretty cool.

As someone who leans a little more conservative, I could go somewhere that suited me.

Furthermore: I'm not advocating slavery as others have insinuated (for the love of God, if you knew some of the ministries I've worked in you would realize I am very anti-racist) or neo-fascism, or virgin sacrifice, or any other extreme example.

Let's get off the extremes - they are straw men and they detract from the discussion.

Keep the Bill of Rights + several of the other Amendments, and then let's let the state's decide from there.

If a state wants to legalize drugs, prostitution, gambling, whatever - let em do it.

If some stupid state wants to limit soda sizes and sugar intake and trans-fats, well if that is what the people REALLY want, what can you say?

A roomful of self-proclaimed Libertarians (of varying degrees) will about break out into a brawl over what ought and ought not be legal.

Add in Anarchists, Constitutionalists, Nanny-state people (because there ARE folks who truly do want to be told what to do. it's easier than thinking for them.), and everything else under the sun, and we'll never all agree.

Aesop said something that i totally agree with:

"The solution to societal ills isn't to simply legalize everything. It's to see what the will of the people is, and those that come in second can either leave, or suck it up and obey."


I just want the option of LEAVING for somewhere I find agreeable to me.

The central governance model results in one group winning and a bunch of groups losing... and we have nowhere to go...

Obviously we cant go back at this point and enact this without much strife.

Secession (de jour or de facto) may wind up being how this is accomplished, though I dont look forward to that either. It'll be filled with the same strife.

Archer Garrett said...

Styles of government is poor wording. Perhaps, different visions of governance is a better description.

I didn't mean it sound as if I want to see Louisiana as a monarchy, nor do I want to meet the royal family.

Ryan said...

Archer, If there is any confusion I am not accusing you of any 'ist or being pro slavery. Slavery is however an example that everything is not hunky dorey when they states have a lot of leeway.

I see where you are going and to sort of agree when it comes to building codes, zoning, taxes, etc but less so when it comes down to rights.

I guess the problem I have with the 'states rights' approach to this issue is that it's sort of a have your cake and eat it too. The other 49 states cannot impose their views on Iowa (or whatever place) as it is a state but 51% the state can force its views on everybody in the state. See what I am saying?

What if a county wants to legalize something and the state doesn't want it? What about city vs county?

The thing that makes my view different from a more conservative one is that while I live very similarly to most conservatives I do not feel the need to force others to do the same. Also the more I see of life the less I think various 'sin' laws actually make life better for anybody.

Thanks for the input to this interesting conversation.

Aesop said...

This blog's title and author notwithstanding, actual large "L" libertarianism is indistinguishable from the magical thinking of 4-year-olds, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
The small "l" variety, of the "Let's make government as small as practically possible", is far more adult, with only a few enormous hurdles to contend with in reality.

And if we're going to talk about straw men, let's start with the delusion that what's been happening for the past 100 years has been voted into place, that the resultant Leviathan "upholds" law, or bears any resemblance to the system as designed and implemented originally. In point of fact, it's precisely just about the last 100 years that are the central problem, which isn't that the system gave us this. IGNORING the system is what gave us this. When you feed the cow wood chips, you don't get steaks. You kill the cow.

Anyone who thinks that magical pruning shears on the hedge of current regulation is ever a workable solution to how society in this country finds itself, needs to sit down and do some serious thinking.

And "voting with your feet", however well-intentioned, was the sort of behavior English gentlemen received white feathers for not so terribly long ago. Coupled with the reality that eventually, you run out of places one may retreat.

One may "vote with their feet" to leave the swamp. Once the alligators have bred to the point that *everywhere* is a swamp, however, wishing for dry land and fewer 'gators isn't really an option under legitimate consideration. That is where we find ourselves today.

You can either learn to float five feet above the ground (best of luck), resolve to try and taste very bad, or decide it's time to thin the herd of 'gators and fence their domain.

Personally, I aim to misbehave, and I expect to get my hands dirty.

But when the dust settles, the "solution" won't be some mythical Utopia where everyone can do almost anything they want. Libertarians (as opposed to libertarians) want to pretend this is so. The result usually turns into the French Revolution in short order, until a few guillotinings to correct the errant becomes a river of blood, followed inevitably and predictably by another Napoleon.

Google 6000 years of recorded history for the supporting evidence.

On the continuum from anarchy to oppression, the differences between libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, and socialism are a series of oases in the desert, none of them as large or hospitable as they appear from far away, and none of them as far from each other as their inhabitants think they are.

The only choice is between government, or none. Government is what civilization means. None is life in the state of nature that Hobbes accurately described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Like Oscar Wilde's prostitute, the difference is only a matter of the price you pay.

Archer Garrett said...

The state level is somewhat arbitrary. If a Minarchist/libertarian minded state decided to allow its counties or cities to determine various laws amongst themselves, and organized their state constitution in that manner, then so be it.

Somewhere, somehow, somebody is always going to be imposing views on people. And that is unfortunate. How do we minimize that, or create alternatives for people, I guess is my angle.

Let's take it to the smallest government that I can think of, outside of the family unit - the HOA (homeowner's association).

There are areas where the HOA is a petty tyrant that abuses its power tremendously.

There are areas where the HOA functions relatively well, but some things are restricted and some Property Owners (PO) grumble about not being allowed to keep their camper in the back yard or have a broken-down car on blocks for several days to repair.

There are also areas where there is an HOA, but the POs basically get to do whatever the heck they want and many POs get upset because they expected some level of control/aesthetics in the neighborhood and the bylaws are just not getting enforced.

There are also these awesome places where there is no HOA.

To quote a wise man, "git in where you fit in."

Ryan said...

Aesop, I tend to lean to the "small l" side. Most of the big L folks are in my opinion more of Anarchists.

The argument that there is only government or not government is ridiculous. There are many forms of government that vary in intrusiveness, scope and goals.

Archer, You make an interesting point about HOA's. Some are ridiculous and others are fairly bland. Personally I cannot see myself buying a house in one. Would rather have a redneck with a yard full of broken cars across the street than Mrs Needs a Life saying what I can and cannot do.

Aesop said...

I presumed you of the small "l" variety.

But on the contrary, there is only government or not government. Some libertarians like to pretend that their variety of government is vastly less intrusive, but it always depends on whose ox is being gored, and which end of the policeman's baton you're standing.

There are three competing axioms that are all true, and notably, all espoused by our forefathers 250 years ago:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquent, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

"That government governs best which governs least."

"What difference between one tyrant 3000 miles away, and 3000 tyrants one mile away?"

Everything worthwhile in civilization, including civilization itself, involves compromises and trade-offs.
James Burke, the BBC/PBS science historian launched an entire book out of this concept, called The Axemakers Gift, in which he painstakingly demonstrated the proposition that every improvement brings unintended complications and consequences, few of which are forseen generations upstream. Just a for instance, currently the size of our aircraft carriers - and hence our nation's capabilities around the world - are limited by the width some engineers decided upon for the Panama Canal, 100+ years ago. Who knew that then? No one; we didn't even have aircraft carriers then.

Government is the same way. The varieties of it differ far less between themselves than the difference between order and anarchy. Once you chose Not Anarchy, the distance between the choices is a lot less than fanboys of any subtype would have you believe.

The biggest key to the government we do have was expressed succinctly by John Adams, who notified all succeeding generations that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

We're living in a time when the truth of that statement is becoming inescapably clear.

Anybody who thinks there's a better way to do it better have a lot better answers than anything I've heard so far.

Chris said...

Three points.

1) States don't have rights. PEOPLE have rights. States have powers which are delegated to them by the people.

I am also a fan of decentralizing some difficult decisions but we should not pretend that states have rights -- because they do not. They exist only as a convenient way for the people to delegate powers because they are too busy doing their day-to-day living.

2) Voting is only valid to a point. The Constitution should put certain topics beyond the reach of a majority vote. A majority cannot ban Islam, ban firearms (oops), authorize warrantless searches and seizures (oops), authorize extrajudicial state assassinations without due process (oops), and so on.

3) Historical perspective is useful. The Continental Army in 1776 was made up of people from all over the US with very different ideas of liberty.

The Puritans from New England believed in small communal but self-governing societies living by a strict puritan code.

The Plantation men from Virginia believed in an ordered, hierarchical liberty, which included slavery.

The backwoodsmen from the Kentucy frontier believed in a rugged individualism, and they didn't take anything from anyone.

The Associators from Pennsylvania believed in a "leveller" egalitarian freedom that erased most class distinctions.

The silk-stocking men from trade ports like Baltimore believed in a freedom that revered the free market and saw freedom as the ability to voluntarily enter into binding written contracts.

George Washington had to find a way to herd all these cats. One technique he found useful was letting ideas percolate from the bottom up. Another was seeking consensus. Healthy "live and let live" with a focus on the higher casuse was effective.

It is a fascinating case study. I suggest reading "Washington's Crossing" by David Hackett Fischer (US Army reading list material BTW) for more insight... This is not a new issue. I see all the above mindsets reflected today.

Ryan said...

Aesop, It is true that you have government or no government just like you are either wearing footwear or not wearing footwear. However saying that means all governments are automatically the same is ridiculous.

Do you really think the Soviet Union under Stalin and modern day Switzerland are governed the same?

Chris, Good points.

Anonymous said...

Aseop; you have your history wrong. Slaves were brought here (ironically much like drugs are brought here) by outsiders. Most slaves within the U.S. were brought to the U.S. prior to 1776. So it wasn't a case of states right allowing farmers to bring slavery here. Before we were ever a country we had been burdened with slavery by outsiders who later simply walked away from the problem. Slavery was not a problem that the constitutional U.S. created but it was one we solved.

Archer Garrett said...


I agree with most of your points.

1. You're right on States not having rights. when I (and probably most people) say State's Rights, I mean State's Powers delegated to them by the people in that state - exactly like you said. "State's Rights" is much easier term to say, and I thought everybody knew what it meant. Nonetheless, valid point and good clarification.

2. Yes and No. My only qualm is 9 of the 13 Original Colonies had State Religions specified in their state constitutions. "Congress shall make no law..." The founders left that decision up to the states. The states could then decide to have their state constitution read "The State Congress shall make no law..." or they may decide NOT to.

3. Off all the different groups you listed, I would argue that they would all fall under the definition of a "Classical Liberal", their only difference being the degree thereof.

A vast majority of the Founders could all be considered some degree of a "Classical Liberal" and they still had a hard time coming to a consensus.

Nowadays, we are so segmented and polarized and just flat out angry with the "other" (whoever the "other" may be in our own opinion) that we lash out at everybody - even people that agree with us on 9 out of 10 things.

We don't have any mulligans so this entire discussion is hypothetical.

The above-referenced points in this comment taken into account, and some other examples in this string of comments, is exactly why I would desire to have a system where "State's Powers Delegated to Them by the People" were strengthened and central/federal governance was weakened. Then maybe I would have a chance that somewhere in these fifty states I could live "my" American dream, whatever that may be.

Alas, that cannot be at this point, unfortunately.

Aesop said...


"Do you really think the Soviet Union under Stalin and modern day Switzerland are governed the same?"

No, and I never said all governments are automatically the same, but the point in your example is they're both governed. I didn't say all systems are identical, I said the differences between them are a lot thinner than most people would want you to believe.

Imagine a system that allows you to round up and imprison millions of people because you don't like them and what they do. Now tell me whether I'm describing Germany in 1939, or the U.S. right now.
The correct answer is "both".

And to the Anonymous genius at 9:04AM:
Considering I never said anything about how slaves came to be here, none of my history is wrong, and whatever point you thought you were making is irrelevant. The point is that a states' rights operating model gave us the biggest problem this country has ever faced - a 300-year running sore - along with the bloodiest civil war in history to that point in time, and phenomenal upheaval a century later when the nation finally did what it should have done 200 years earlier. And even yet the issues continue to cause any number of problems to this day.
Thus it's not a paradisical utopia I'd wish to see resurrected.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts