Why I don't understand Libertarian's

[Turd Ferguson]

http://www.lp.org/issues/

I can see why they think too much governmental control is bad.

I just don't get why they want to make all schools charge tuition.

At least with the Government in charge your elementary education is guranteed to all kids. But if your poor I guess you just don't deserve an education.

I also guess each school will have it's corporate sponsorship. So you can get pepsi in the cafeteria now.

 

[Ganryu]

Turd Ferguson

Yeah, that's right. Turd Ferguson. It's a funny name.

 

[string_bean00]

I strongly agree with a lot of libertarian ideas, although the school one I'm skeptical on. I think under their ideas, the rich would get the best education (as they do now in private schools), while the poor would be left out in the cold. That's one topic on which I digress from their ideals, but for the most part I think they have some good stuff brewing.

 

[manny78]

http://www.lp.org/issues/

I can see why they think too much governmental control is bad.

I just don't get why they want to make all schools charge tuition.

At least with the Government in charge your elementary education is guranteed to all kids. But if your poor I guess you just don't deserve an education.

I also guess each school will have it's corporate sponsorship. So you can get pepsi in the cafeteria now.

Schools here already have corporate sponsoship.

And also if you didnt pay for somehting, why should you get it for free ?

 

[Delinquent]

I like their stance on drugs. Too bad more people don't side with the LP

EDIT: Actually the more I read through it, I like most of their views

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Re: Re: Why I don't understand Libertarian's

Schools here already have corporate sponsoship.

And also if you didnt pay for somehting, why should you get it for free ?

Some things are done for the betterment of society. I believe that we all have certain guranteed rights as americans. There is the constitutional stuff. But I also think you should be able to have an elementary education as a right. Kids can't pay for school themselves. They don't work.

We as a civil socient have earned that I think.

 

[Apöllo]

Libertarians can range from anarchist to people who would like minimal government control. It is usually labeled as very self-serving. They're a very small group.

 

[digger]

Re: Re: Why I don't understand Libertarian's

And also if you didnt pay for somehting, why should you get it for free ?

You have got to go get the new (old) Heinlein book -- the one they just discovered that was presumed lost since 1939. For Us, The Living

It might just change your mind about a few things.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

From the lp site on how education should change.

COLOR=blue]"Support a true market in education -- one in which parents and students would not be stuck with a bad local school, because they could choose another.[/COLOR]

They can do this now if they choose to pay for education. Anybody can go to say a catholic school if they want to pay. Its the kids family's that can't pay that I worry about.

Implement measures such as tax credits so that parents will have the financial ability to choose among schools.

Woo hoo big deal. What's the amount of the credit? That's nice you let us front the bill for the whole year too.

Provide financial incentives for businesses to help fund schools and for individuals to support students other than their own children.

Don't business get enough breaks? And how do your regulate who they give too so its even.

Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, which spends billions on education and educates no one. The growth of this agency and its numerous regulations is a major reason for runaway costs in American schools.
WTF? speaking as one of the one's who wasn't educated apparently, I think this is about the most ridiculous generalization about the job the D of E does.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Re: Re: Re: Why I don't understand Libertarian's

Some things are done for the betterment of society. I believe that we all have certain guranteed rights as americans. There is the constitutional stuff. But I also think you should be able to have an elementary education as a right. Kids can't pay for school themselves. They don't work.

Then you don't understand the concept of "rights". Define it for us, and then we can talk.

We as a civil socient have earned that I think.

Society earns nothing, as it is the collection of individuals. Only individuals earn, from their own productive measures.

 

[atlantabiolab]

From the lp site on how education should change.

COLOR=blue]"Support a true market in education -- one in which parents and students would not be stuck with a bad local school, because they could choose another.[/COLOR]

They can do this now if they choose to pay for education. Anybody can go to say a catholic school if they want to pay. Its the kids family's that can't pay that I worry about.

While people can do this currently, they are penalized as they are forced to pay extra taxes which goes to pay for public education and they then must pay extra for private schooling if they so choose. The Libertarian stance is much larger than simply the point you have focused on, and its the extras that they discuss which permits the dissolution of the Dept. of Education. Libertarians favor the abolishing of the Income Tax, which would allow parents to retain all of their earnings, thus allowing them greater money to direct to education in the manner they so choose.

Also, the abolition of public education would cause an explosion of private schools to emerge. This increased competition for your money, would drive the cost of education down, and allow you the freedom to choose the school of your choice.

As for the poor, charity organizations would, as they currently do, assist in the education of the poorer members of society. To claim that we need the DOE because they "educate" all people is to deny reality. The inner city schools often times receive the most federal money and provide the worst education, if any, to the "needy". So, the idea that public education is a glowing success of egalitarianism is fallacious.

Implement measures such as tax credits so that parents will have the financial ability to choose among schools.

Woo hoo big deal. What's the amount of the credit? That's nice you let us front the bill for the whole year too.

This is nothing new. The Repubilcan Party has presented this idea in the form of School Vouchers. I don't care for this idea, but it is one of many.

As for your remark of "you let us front the bill", you are already fronting the bill on schools that spend upwards of 11,000 per pupil and cannot teach them to read or write. And guess what the teacher's unions answer always is? "We need more funding. Teachers need pay raises! Blah Blah". But a tax credit is not "you" funding the bill, it is you being able to retain more of your earnings, instead of being forced to hand it over to Uncle Sam.

Provide financial incentives for businesses to help fund schools and for individuals to support students other than their own children.

Don't business get enough breaks? And how do your regulate who they give too so its even.

You are a statist at heart. Businesses, just as individuals, DO NOT get enough breaks. By your belief, the government grants businesses the priviledge of existence and profiting from its actions, and they should happily pay to the government for this priviledge. If businesses are penalized by government, through taxation or regulation, we suffer.

Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, which spends billions on education and educates no one. The growth of this agency and its numerous regulations is a major reason for runaway costs in American schools.
WTF? speaking as one of the one's who wasn't educated apparently, I think this is about the most ridiculous generalization about the job the D of E does.

What you call education, I call indoctrination, which is evident in your shocked response to the idea of businesses not being burdened by government taxation and regulation.

The job of the DOE is to educate the children of America; it fails miserably. Look out your window at your fellow American and this becomes self-evident.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

While people can do this currently, they are penalized as they are forced to pay extra taxes which goes to pay for public education and they then must pay extra for private schooling if they so choose. The Libertarian stance is much larger than simply the point you have focused on, and its the extras that they discuss which permits the dissolution of the Dept. of Education. Libertarians favor the abolishing of the Income Tax, which would allow parents to retain all of their earnings, thus allowing them greater money to direct to education in the manner they so choose.

Also, the abolition of public education would cause an explosion of private schools to emerge. This increased competition for your money, would drive the cost of education down, and allow you the freedom to choose the school of your choice.

As for the poor, charity organizations would, as they currently do, assist in the education of the poorer members of society. To claim that we need the DOE because they "educate" all people is to deny reality. The inner city schools often times receive the most federal money and provide the worst education, if any, to the "needy". So, the idea that public education is a glowing success of egalitarianism is fallacious.



This is nothing new. The Repubilcan Party has presented this idea in the form of School Vouchers. I don't care for this idea, but it is one of many.

As for your remark of "you let us front the bill", you are already fronting the bill on schools that spend upwards of 11,000 per pupil and cannot teach them to read or write. And guess what the teacher's unions answer always is? "We need more funding. Teachers need pay raises! Blah Blah". But a tax credit is not "you" funding the bill, it is you being able to retain more of your earnings, instead of being forced to hand it over to Uncle Sam.



You are a statist at heart. Businesses, just as individuals, DO NOT get enough breaks. By your belief, the government grants businesses the priviledge of existence and profiting from its actions, and they should happily pay to the government for this priviledge. If businesses are penalized by government, through taxation or regulation, we suffer.



What you call education, I call indoctrination, which is evident in your shocked response to the idea of businesses not being burdened by government taxation and regulation.

The job of the DOE is to educate the children of America; it fails miserably. Look out your window at your fellow American and this becomes self-evident.

As a product of the public school system, I disagree that public education is failing. To what do you base your acusation? If half of all kids get a good education is that a failure? The kid has to want to be educated, so maybe some of the balme resides with the parents not correcting their kids behavior. 1 question. How do you propose that every kid has the opportunity to get an education and not have to pay for it?

 

[atlantabiolab]

As a product of the public school system, I disagree that public education is failing.

A study of one?! You will make a great scientist.

To what do you base your acusation?

Nothing more than the evidence.

If half of all kids get a good education is that a failure?

I don't know; do you consider 50% failure a success?

The kid has to want to be educated, so maybe some of the balme resides with the parents not correcting their kids behavior.

Agreed.

1 question. How do you propose that every kid has the opportunity to get an education and not have to pay for it?

Before any answer to this question can be made, I must ask you some questions:

Why do you context your question with the idea of "free"? By what right does anyone have to anything "free"; never mind the reality that public schooling is not "free", simply paid for unequally by all? How do you propose that every kid has the opportunity to get food/housing/place your demand here and not have to pay for it?

To answer the question exactly as you asked:

We would demand teachers to provide an education, without pay, since "free" denotes "no money", under the penalty of death, as I see no other way to persuade people to work at the behest of others with no payment. Some used to call this slavery.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I strongly agree with a lot of libertarian ideas, although the school one I'm skeptical on. I think under their ideas, the rich would get the best education (as they do now in private schools), while the poor would be left out in the cold. That's one topic on which I digress from their ideals, but for the most part I think they have some good stuff brewing.

Umm, that's what happens now. Education in poor areas sucks. LP just wants to save us billions in taxes - billions which are having zero impact on education.

The cold hard reality of life is that being born poor sucks, always will. The education system has very little to do with where you end up, yet we perpetuate this fantasy that everyone has an equal chance.

This fantasy costs us billions.

 

[Bullit]

The thing I dont understand about Libertarians is how the whole Dewy Decimal thing works.

I mean wtf?

 

[beastboy]

The thing I dont understand about Libertarians is how the whole Dewy Decimal thing works.

I mean wtf?

WTF?

A strong 17.

 

[Bullit]

WTF?

A strong 17.

17?

Fuck that. And fuck you too, while we're at it.

I mean... its no 1, but its certainly no 17.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Umm, that's what happens now. Education in poor areas sucks. LP just wants to save us billions in taxes - billions which are having zero impact on education.

The cold hard reality of life is that being born poor sucks, always will. The education system has very little to do with where you end up, yet we perpetuate this fantasy that everyone has an equal chance.

This fantasy costs us billions.

I suppose that is why so many city type schools bus kids to the rich school districts. I just don't see not offering anything unless you pay. And once again the Libertarian party has lots of ideals but no feasable plan to make it work for everyone. Lib's are in love with business it seems and not what is right for the masses.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I suppose that is why so many city type schools bus kids to the rich school districts. I just don't see not offering anything unless you pay. And once again the Libertarian party has lots of ideals but no feasable plan to make it work for everyone. Lib's are in love with business it seems and not what is right for the masses.

Who decides what is "right" for the masses?

The Libertarian system is one that says each person should have the opportunity to make it on their own ability.

"Business" is simply the way that peope exchange productivity - I produce oranges, and someone buiys them from me. i then go buy milk, etc.

Money is merely a means of valuing productivity. The LP calls fopr the free exchange of money. This is business. Yes, the LP loves the free exchange of money among individuals.

"Business" when it is dreided by critics such as yourself, refers to the way that government gets invovled with business and imposes legislation at the will of a lobbyists. Business doesn't run teh government.

Business has no power, government has it all. The LP wants to do away with government involvemnet in business, or, do away with government invovlement in the free exchange of money between individuals.

That. sir, is right for the masses.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Business doesn't run teh government.

Maybe you should open up your eyes a bit. Let me count the ways that is wrong. If you don't think Business has power, check out the Microsoft vs D.O.J court battle.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Maybe you should open up your eyes a bit. Let me count the ways that is wrong. If you don't think Business has power, check out the Microsoft vs D.O.J court battle.

You brought it up; please tell us the specifics of this case and what Microsoft did wrong. I will enjoy this one.

You are proving my point about public education.

 

[PIGEON-RAT]

the self interested side of me loves the idea of libertarianism
but as far as the public good goes, i have my doubts

under a libertarian government i can just imagine how businesses like microsoft or the RIAA would grow out of control. no anti-trust legislation and government intervention would make it a prime situation for anti-competitive business practices

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Maybe you should open up your eyes a bit. Let me count the ways that is wrong. If you don't think Business has power, check out the Microsoft vs D.O.J court battle.

Educate me. But before you do, ask the 15,000 employees who have become millionaires because of Microsoft stock grants. And ask the people who were using computers that all had different standards - resulting in hardware and software incompatibility.

And while you're at it, tell me who had the power in the government vs. AT&T? How about the government vs. Alcoa?

And while you've got it going on with knowledge, tell me how many government sponsored railroads failed before a private one actually worked?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

the self interested side of me loves the idea of libertarianism
but as far as the public good goes, i have my doubts

under a libertarian government i can just imagine how businesses like microsoft or the RIAA would grow out of control. no anti-trust legislation and government intervention would make it a prime situation for anti-competitive business practices

WTF is "public good"? what rights does teh public have?

The public is a series of individuals with individual rights, yes?

SO please define 'public good'.

 

[PIGEON-RAT]

WTF is "public good"? what rights does teh public have?

The public is a series of individuals with individual rights, yes?

SO please define 'public good'.

businesses exploiting the common man, inner city communities deteriorating further since kids aren't going to school. stuff like that. that's not in the interest of the public. before you launch your assault on me, i'm not saying that individuals should have their hands held and shit given to them.

like i said, the self-interested part of me likes it. that's pretty important in a capitalist society.

there's a few different possibilities for the institution of such a government. the rich would likely get richer, and the poor get poorer. but what happens to the middle class is fuzzy. it's entirely possible that the middle class would grow in size, and grow in average income.

i took a sabbatical from econ related courses and now i don't remember shit so it's painful and probably futile to try to analyze this.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

businesses exploiting the common man, inner city communities deteriorating further since kids aren't going to school. stuff like that. that's not in the interest of the public. before you launch your assault on me, i'm not saying that individuals should have their hands held and shit given to them.

[/quoet]


Not here to assault you, just want to ask some basic questions:

1. In a free society, no one can be exploited because people are free to walk from undesirable employment. Only thgovernment has power to exploit, not business. Please expalin to me how a business explouts someone without government regulation.

2. Please exaplin how inner city communities 9really, communities with lots of poor minorities) can get any worse, and how exisitjng government intrisuion helps them. From where I sit, it seems like a huge amount of regulations have done nothing, except make people dependent on hadnouts and take from the more productive members of society to give handouts.

How could a truly free market be worse?

like i said, the self-interested part of me likes it. that's pretty important in a capitalist society.

if you like it, what makes you think other people wouldnot? what makes you think they wouldnot be self-interested?

there's a few different possibilities for the institution of such a government. the rich would likely get richer, and the poor get poorer. but what happens to the middle class is fuzzy. it's entirely possible that the middle class would grow in size, and grow in average income.

Actually, the numerous laws enacted regarding employment are ahindrance to the poor people doing better. Businesses can't hire people without mucho legal compliance, meaning they are less likely to hire.

The government has basically said that people are NOT FREE to enter into employment agreements that they decide are agreeable. We need big brother to tell us how to work as it stands right now..

Are you capable of making a decision about where to work?

 

[Apöllo]

I was just wondering if anyone had any good real world examples of Free Maket societies. I'd love to read up on them.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I was just wondering if anyone had any good real world examples of Free Maket societies. I'd love to read up on them.

The closest you'll get is America 1800 to late 1800s. Amazingly, it spearheaded the industrial revolution after thousand of years of agrarian socities.



The world was thought flat too.

 

[Apöllo]

The closest you'll get is America 1800 to late 1800s. Amazingly, it spearheaded the industrial revolution after thousand of years of agrarian socities.



The world was thought flat too.

I was hoping for something with less coruption and explotation. Is there anything else? I heard some south american country tried it out recently. Are they still doing it?

 

[Moderate_THIS]

"Why I hate librarians"

no fucking wonder I wasn't following this damn thread

 

[PIGEON-RAT]

Not here to assault you, just want to ask some basic questions:

1. In a free society, no one can be exploited because people are free to walk from undesirable employment. Only thgovernment has power to exploit, not business. Please expalin to me how a business explouts someone without government regulation.

the labor union movement wasn't just happenstance. workers were working long hours in bad conditions for low pay. in labor market with a high supply of workers and limited jobs, of course the wage is piss poor. with limited job opportunities workers have no other choice and must work to survive. when employers know their workers have no alternatives and pay them shit, that's exploitation. i will admit that minimum wage is merely a price floor for labor and creates unemployment, but the benefit/harm of this is often argued. knowingly ignoring dangerous conditions in the workplace because it cuts costs is also exploitation.

2. Please exaplin how inner city communities 9really, communities with lots of poor minorities) can get any worse, and how exisitjng government intrisuion helps them. From where I sit, it seems like a huge amount of regulations have done nothing, except make people dependent on hadnouts and take from the more productive members of society to give handouts.

like i said before, i do not agree with handouts/welfare. but inner city communities can get worse, and are getting worse in some places. i've lived there and i've worked there. welfare is failing, many urban public scools are failing, and public housing is failing, but much of that has to do with how it is implemented.

i've worked for a private company that receives federal funds to build and manage low income housing in some of the worst ghettos on the east coast. they've been incredibly successful in improving areas with damn nice housing and plummeting crime rates, which is attributed to background checks for all residents.

just curious, how does the LP view this kind of government intervention? i've seen it create viable communities in previously dangerous areas, as well as create jobs for residents. people don't stay there forever either because it's a stepping stone upward. so it's not on the level of handouts at all.

if you like it, what makes you think other people wouldnot? what makes you think they wouldnot be self-interested?

because i would be considered priveledged. i did not have to fight my way through much adversity because my ancestors already had.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

the labor union movement wasn't just happenstance. workers were working long hours in bad conditions for low pay. in labor market with a high supply of workers and limited jobs, of course the wage is piss poor. with limited job opportunities workers have no other choice and must work to survive. when employers know their workers have no alternatives and pay them shit, that's exploitation. i will admit that minimum wage is merely a price floor for labor and creates unemployment, but the benefit/harm of this is often argued. knowingly ignoring dangerous conditions in the workplace because it cuts costs is also exploitation.

What somay people miss is that as bad as conditions were, it was a gigiantic step up in conditions and standard of living. Before those horrible conditions, children of 7 or 8 were wokring as trade apprentices if lucky. If unlucky they were working on the loom starting around age 3.

That of course is assuming they were lucky enough not to be farmhands.

What you describe as brutal was a gigantic improvement. It seems barbaric only by today's standards.

like i said before, i do not agree with handouts/welfare. but inner city communities can get worse, and are getting worse in some places. i've lived there and i've worked there. welfare is failing, many urban public scools are failing, and public housing is failing, but much of that has to do with how it is implemented.

My sister teaches in NY city in a bad area. Implementation is the problem, agreed, discussion saved for later thread.

i've worked for a private company that receives federal funds to build and manage low income housing in some of the worst ghettos on the east coast. they've been incredibly successful in improving areas with damn nice housing and plummeting crime rates, which is attributed to background checks for all residents.

You control the residents through background checks though - you;re just moving the problem.

because i would be considered priveledged. i did not have to fight my way through much adversity because my ancestors already had.

Why punish you forthat? if youare not up to the task of succeeding, you'll be poor. I say let you determine that.

 

[PIGEON-RAT]

What somay people miss is that as bad as conditions were, it was a gigiantic step up in conditions and standard of living. Before those horrible conditions, children of 7 or 8 were wokring as trade apprentices if lucky. If unlucky they were working on the loom starting around age 3.

That of course is assuming they were lucky enough not to be farmhands.

What you describe as brutal was a gigantic improvement. It seems barbaric only by today's standards.

because it was worse before doesn't make it acceptable now.

You control the residents through background checks though - you;re just moving the problem.

moving some of the problem, but also providing an environment where more people don't get sucked into it. when the only people in your neighborhood with any money are the ones selling drugs, you learn as a kid what you do to be successful in your environment. intelligent, enterprising kids get sucked into it, no doubt. but get rid of the crime, and make sure all your neighbors are working, and the influences change dramatically.

Why punish you forthat? if youare not up to the task of succeeding, you'll be poor. I say let you determine that.

not saying you should punish me for that. even though i spelled it horribly wrong. but i'm privileged only because my ancestors were able to succeed with the assistance of government regulation. even with that it was a struggle.

 

[atlantabiolab]

because it was worse before doesn't make it acceptable now.

Matt explained how the industrial revolution provided better working conditions than before; that to get to the "better" stage of industrialization it had to progress through its "worse" stages. Why do you think that this progression would have somehow stalled without the assistance of government? What makes you think that eliminating government intervention into the market would create an early Industrial Revolution environment, with sweatshops and low wages being re-introduced?

moving some of the problem, but also providing an environment where more people don't get sucked into it. when the only people in your neighborhood with any money are the ones selling drugs, you learn as a kid what you do to be successful in your environment. intelligent, enterprising kids get sucked into it, no doubt. but get rid of the crime, and make sure all your neighbors are working, and the influences change dramatically.

More examples of failed government intervention: planned communities, war on drugs, job training programs, etc.

A major platform of the LP is drug legalization, which would eliminate the profit margin of drug sales, thus making it unprofitable to sell drugs. Crimes related to drug addiction would decrease as the cost of the drugs decrease, not to mention deaths attributed to impure or high potency drugs would diminish, since they could be sold by commercial industry.

not saying you should punish me for that. even though i spelled it horribly wrong. but i'm privileged only because my ancestors were able to succeed with the assistance of government regulation. even with that it was a struggle.

There is no way you can prove this, since you have no way to observe their actions in the context of a world without government assistance. Change the context of life and people will change accordingly, i.e. remove the safety net of government and human actions will change. Tell a man that he can get paid to be unemployed for 13 weeks and it will take him 13 weeks to find a job; give him no unemployment pay and a job will appear much sooner.

People have survived much longer than government aid has existed. This is something modern man cannot fathom, a world without the context he knows.

 

[PIGEON-RAT]

Matt explained how the industrial revolution provided better working conditions than before; that to get to the "better" stage of industrialization it had to progress through its "worse" stages. Why do you think that this progression would have somehow stalled without the assistance of government? What makes you think that eliminating government intervention into the market would create an early Industrial Revolution environment, with sweatshops and low wages being re-introduced?

that's the thing. working conditions improved with the badgering of business by government and unions. was the progression from slavery to sweatshops actually a progression at all? for the business owner, sure, but not for the worker. slaves were actually fed and provided housing.

More examples of failed government intervention: planned communities, war on drugs, job training programs, etc.

A major platform of the LP is drug legalization, which would eliminate the profit margin of drug sales, thus making it unprofitable to sell drugs. Crimes related to drug addiction would decrease as the cost of the drugs decrease, not to mention deaths attributed to impure or high potency drugs would diminish, since they could be sold by commercial industry.

i agree with their drug policy to some extent. legalization could potentially eliminate a great deal of crime associated with drugs. but that doesn't make drugs like cocaine or heroin any less addictive, or less damaging. commercial industry would eliminate high potency drugs? an undergound market would most certainly develop to fill this gap.

i guess private rehab clinics would flourish though.

 

[atlantabiolab]

that's the thing. working conditions improved with the badgering of business by government and unions.

But you still have not answered the question, why do you think that it would not have progressed, without the intervention of the government?

was the progression from slavery to sweatshops actually a progression at all? for the business owner, sure, but not for the worker. slaves were actually fed and provided housing.

This is almost pitiful to respond to. Do you really think that a slave is the same a free working man? This analogy of a working man as nothing more than a slave to his boss is pure Marxist drivel. But it is common rhetoric of the masses:

In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" [Dosteovsky's 'Grand Inquisitor']

i agree with their drug policy to some extent. legalization could potentially eliminate a great deal of crime associated with drugs. but that doesn't make drugs like cocaine or heroin any less addictive, or less damaging.

It doesn't matter the specifics of the pharmacology of the drugs themselves, the major result is that when people do drugs, which they will, their lives will not be ruined by government criminalization of this action. They will not be incarcerated, lose their jobs, their families, their property, etc. and become burdens on society, simply because they chose to use a drug. This is a major problem in urban areas, the criminalizing of these individuals burdens their lives further than their already poor status.

commercial industry would eliminate high potency drugs? an undergound market would most certainly develop to fill this gap.

You don't see this happening with tobacco or alcohol, do you? Even if some companies wish to market higher potency drugs, labeling laws would require them to inform their buyers of this fact.

i guess private rehab clinics would flourish though.

Yep. This is just a fact of society's desire to use drugs.

 

[collegiateLifter]

I've got problems with this, because it is nepotism hiding under the guise of liberty.

There are serious disparities of wealth issues here where the poor children (not fully actualized adults) will be unable to even get a basic education....

ABL says that charities will pick the tab for poor schools. I say they won't.

The state may not be qualified to make decisions for adults, but it certainly is for minors.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

There are serious disparities of wealth issues here where the poor children (not fully actualized adults) will be unable to even get a basic education....
[/quotes]

That's called *now.* Do you even understand the difference in education for poor and rich people? Can you compare HS131 in the Bronx with Philips Exeter? ever seen either one?

I went to an elite New England prep school (not Exeter but similar) - $18,000 per year in 1993 (!) and my sister teaches in a war zone in NY city. The difference is night and day.

Get real dude - those days of "education unavailable for all" are here. Today's reality - education follows the price of the house.

A better question is if this massive expenditure on education is anything more than a smokescreen for this reality.

ABL says that charities will pick the tab for poor schools. I say they won't.

And Matt says it does not matter. Where is education spelled out as a Constitutional right? WHat right does anotehr's child have to be educated at my expense?

The state may not be qualified to make decisions for adults, but it certainly is for minors.

Do you work for Hillary Clinton? If you don't, clearly you have read and taken to her book "It takes a village to raise a child". That's complete socialist garbage - the path the child takes should be determined solely by the parents, no one else.

Are you really advocating that the government step into people's homes? That's what your post says - can you clarify that?

 

[Apöllo]

And Matt says it does not matter. Where is education spelled out as a Constitutional right? WHat right does anotehr's child have to be educated at my expense?

Matt you know very well that public education has been an amercian staple since the beginning. The only region of the country without public education was the South before the Civil War. Take a guess at home many people could read down there?

Anyways, Thomas Jefferson believed that it was society’s benefit to educate all of its citizens so that they might provide leadership and support for the country.

Jefferson drafted the bill for the more General Diffusion of Knowledge. The bill proposed the establishment of Common Schools. Common schools are tax supported schools for reading, writing, arithmetic, and history which all boys and girls could attend free for 3 years and pay thereafter. The primary mission of common schools to teach all social classes in order to produce good, productive citizens.

The bill also proposed the establishment of 20 grammar schools where advanced topics were taught (Latin, Greek, English, grammar, and advanced arithmetic). The brightest students from lower schools, who could not afford tuition, would attend these schools at the public expense.

From the grammar schools, 10 scholarship students would go to the College of William and Mary for three years at the public expense. This system would safeguard liberty.

 

[atlantabiolab]

ABL says that charities will pick the tab for poor schools. I say they won't.

Matt reponded to your other points, so my question is; Why do you think that charities and local organizations, such as special interest groups and religious organizations will not do what they have done in the past and are doing now?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Matt you know very well that public education has been an amercian staple since the beginning. The only region of the country without public education was the South before the Civil War. Take a guess at home many people could read down there?

Earliest institutions of learning were always private. The idea of public education is Socialist not American.

It's the same idea as healthcare - shouldn't everyone have the same? It is yet another example of government taking from some to give to others under penalty of imprisonment or asset seizure.

Anyways, Thomas Jefferson believed that it was society’s benefit to educate all of its citizens so that they might provide leadership and support for the country.

Jefferson drafted the bill for the more General Diffusion of Knowledge. The bill proposed the establishment of Common Schools. Common schools are tax supported schools for reading, writing, arithmetic, and history which all boys and girls could attend free for 3 years and pay thereafter. The primary mission of common schools to teach all social classes in order to produce good, productive citizens.

Ben Franklin did the same thing using prvate funds and voluntary donations. So what?

The bill also proposed the establishment of 20 grammar schools where advanced topics were taught (Latin, Greek, English, grammar, and advanced arithmetic). The brightest students from lower schools, who could not afford tuition, would attend these schools at the public expense.

Well, the constitution leaves these powers to the states, but is a far cry from today's system.

From the grammar schools, 10 scholarship students would go to the College of William and Mary for three years at the public expense. This system would safeguard liberty.

William and Mary was a seminary at the time - this was basically a way of giving into church demands. Early lobbying perhaps?

No system where people can vote themselves money for their interests from others who do not wish to give it, can preserve liberty.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Matt you know very well that public education has been an amercian staple since the beginning. The only region of the country without public education was the South before the Civil War. Take a guess at home many people could read down there?

Anyways, Thomas Jefferson believed that it was society’s benefit to educate all of its citizens so that they might provide leadership and support for the country.

Jefferson drafted the bill for the more General Diffusion of Knowledge. The bill proposed the establishment of Common Schools. Common schools are tax supported schools for reading, writing, arithmetic, and history which all boys and girls could attend free for 3 years and pay thereafter. The primary mission of common schools to teach all social classes in order to produce good, productive citizens.

The bill also proposed the establishment of 20 grammar schools where advanced topics were taught (Latin, Greek, English, grammar, and advanced arithmetic). The brightest students from lower schools, who could not afford tuition, would attend these schools at the public expense.

From the grammar schools, 10 scholarship students would go to the College of William and Mary for three years at the public expense. This system would safeguard liberty.

You are correct. But you are arguing that it is "right" not because of the reasoning, but because of who accepted the idea. Madison, the father of the Constitution, who wrote so grandly about liberty and freedom, enacted the first Sedition Laws under our Constitution. Men can have great ideas, but not follow the idea themselves.

Jefferson's implemented form of "subsidized" education is drastically different than what we have today, not to mention the fact that 10 scholarships back then was very small compared to the populace. Also, the states are the ones empowered to enact laws not granted to the Congress, thus the DOE is unconstitutional, it has no power to create such an entity. By allowing the states to control such measures, individuals have the ability to leave locations which implement laws which they do not agree with; this is not the case for federal laws, unless you leave the country. Also, local control is much more efficient than the dislocated control of federal powers.

The history is not the issue, since it is not a power granted to Congress and the empirical evidence shows that the current system, and its re-arranged manifestations, are failures. Do we continue to accept this failure simply because the intentions are noble? You can see the real issue whenever school vouchers are discussed; those who have a vested interest in public education fight tooth and nail against the idea of choice, they simply mean to maintain their current status.

 

[Apöllo]

Earliest institutions of learning were always private. The idea of public education is Socialist not American.

It's the same idea as healthcare - shouldn't everyone have the same? It is yet another example of government taking from some to give to others under penalty of imprisonment or asset seizure.



Ben Franklin did the same thing using prvate funds and voluntary donations. So what?



Well, the constitution leaves these powers to the states, but is a far cry from today's system.




William and Mary was a seminary at the time - this was basically a way of giving into church demands. Early lobbying perhaps?

No system where people can vote themselves money for their interests from others who do not wish to give it, can preserve liberty.

First off, the first schools in "america" during colonial times were set up by churches. The majority of colonies were ran in part by churches who collected taxes which funneled money to schools.

Secondly, The first public school in America was established by Puritan settlers in 1635 in the home of Schoolmaster Philemon Pormont and was later moved to School Street. This is site of the oldest public school in America which Ben Franklin, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock once attended. Franklin's place of birth was just one block away on Milk Street.

Where would poor old Ben had been if there had been no public education?

 

[Apöllo]

You are correct. But you are arguing that it is "right" not because of the reasoning, but because of who accepted the idea. Madison, the father of the Constitution, who wrote so grandly about liberty and freedom, enacted the first Sedition Laws under our Constitution. Men can have great ideas, but not follow the idea themselves.

Jefferson's implemented form of "subsidized" education is drastically different than what we have today, not to mention the fact that 10 scholarships back then was very small compared to the populace. Also, the states are the ones empowered to enact laws not granted to the Congress, thus the DOE is unconstitutional, it has no power to create such an entity. By allowing the states to control such measures, individuals have the ability to leave locations which implement laws which they do not agree with; this is not the case for federal laws, unless you leave the country. Also, local control is much more efficient than the dislocated control of federal powers.

The history is not the issue, since it is not a power granted to Congress and the empirical evidence shows that the current system, and its re-arranged manifestations, are failures. Do we continue to accept this failure simply because the intentions are noble? You can see the real issue whenever school vouchers are discussed; those who have a vested interest in public education fight tooth and nail against the idea of choice, they simply mean to maintain their current status.

I'm going to try to respond to this as best I can. As we should all know that James Madison was one of the earliest and strongest proponents of public education.

"Learned Institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty & dangerous encroachments on the public liberty. They are nurseries of skilful Teachers for the schools distributed throughout the Community. . . .

. . . At cheaper & nearer seats of Learning parents with slender incomes may place their sons in a course of Education putting them on a level with the sons of the richest. . . .

It is among the happy peculiarities of our Union . . . [that is,] the merit of diffusing the light and the advantages of public Instruction."

He was very much agaist the church having anything to do with goverment so I don't see why you would support vouchers to private schools if you look up to him so much.

The fact that public education has grown into such a monster has to do with the people that run it as well as the freedom that our constitution grants us. The development of regulated education is not against the constitution, but rather available BECAUSE of the constitution and the powers it gives us.

 

[BO-DEN]

http://www.lp.org/issues/

I can see why they think too much governmental control is bad.

i always thaught democrat liberals were for more goverment not less

 

[atlantabiolab]

I'm going to try to respond to this as best I can. As we should all know that James Madison was one of the earliest and strongest proponents of public education.

"Learned Institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty & dangerous encroachments on the public liberty. They are nurseries of skilful Teachers for the schools distributed throughout the Community. . . .

. . . At cheaper & nearer seats of Learning parents with slender incomes may place their sons in a course of Education putting them on a level with the sons of the richest. . . .

It is among the happy peculiarities of our Union . . . [that is,] the merit of diffusing the light and the advantages of public Instruction."

I see very little in these passages which suggest tax-paid funding of schooling. Not having the full texts, I cannot discern to his full meaning.

Comparing early American schooling versus modern schooling shows the failure of modern public education. The majority of the Founders had less than 10 years total schooling, most being near 2-3 years. Not to mention all were literate at the time of entering schools. For people to be as well read and reasoned as these early men demonstrates that the modern form of schooling is completely inefficient. I understand the secondary effect of public schooling being the prevention of young from entering the market place, but it still shows how poorly we teach our children over the course of 13 years.

He was very much agaist the church having anything to do with goverment so I don't see why you would support vouchers to private schools if you look up to him so much.

I am neither a supporter of private vouchers, which has a slew of problems I can conceive, nor Madison's desires. My problem with vouchers is not the idea of vouchers per se, but the fact that government will introduce regulations on schools who wish to accept vouchers: discrimination policies, curriculum policies, etc. In the clamor for voucher funding, the schools will bow down to federal dictate and destroy the very essence of private education which makes them special: choice.

As for Madison, he was an imperialist, not a Jefferson, who I admire and respect.

The fact that public education has grown into such a monster has to do with the people that run it as well as the freedom that our constitution grants us.

No. The very essence of regulation is what makes public education ineffective. Allowing no choice to the constituents is the downfall of the beauracracy of education, but the boon of those in power.

Not to mention the problem of public coffers:

I would promise the whole amount were I not afraid that someday my gift might be abused for someone's selfish purposes, as I see happen in many places where teachers' salaries are paid from public funds. There is only one remedy to meet this evil: if the appointment of teachers is left entirely to the parents, and they are conscientious about making a wise choice through their obligation to contribute to the cost. People who may be careless about another person's money are sure to be careful about their own, and they will see that only a suitable recipient shall be found for my money if he is also to have their own... I am leaving everything open for the parents: the decision and choice are to be theirs-all I want is to make the arrangements and pay my share.
-Pliny the Younger

The development of regulated education is not against the constitution, but rather available BECAUSE of the constitution and the powers it gives us.

Show us the words of the Founders which argue for the Congress to fund public education. If you believe that the words of Madison and Jefferson argues for this idea, then there should be sufficient history to show them argue for the implementation of federally funded education. Madison stated:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

 

[Turd Ferguson]

But you still have not answered the question, why do you think that it would not have progressed, without the intervention of the government?

Because the companies never had an interest in making it better and people need the job. Check out what happened in Flint MI. to start the union movement. Unionization ( collective bargining ) is a constitutional right that Libertarians don't talk about too much.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Because the companies never had an interest in making it better and people need the job. Check out what happened in Flint MI. to start the union movement. Unionization ( collective bargining ) is a constitutional right that Libertarians don't talk about too much.

Find that one in the constitution and I will buy you a big fat whatever the hell you want.


While unions may have arisen in a free market, what did not arise and cannot ever arise in a free market is the protections that are given to unions - for example, the classic law if you use non-union labor, you have to pay them the same rates as union laborers

Anyone who has ever done construction in NY can attest to that one - it goes on pretty much everywhere.

Sure, unions can arise in a free market. And in a free market, employers can ignore them. In our market, unions have arisen, and been granted special privileges which harm the economy greatly.

In fact, unionization is a huge reason so many corporations are running jobs out of this country.

Most Libertarians do not want to outlaw unions, just eliminate the protectionsthey have.

The only unions that should be outlawed are those in the public sector - teachers, cops etc. No one shouldbe able to negotiate collectively for tax dollars.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Because the companies never had an interest in making it better and people need the job. Check out what happened in Flint MI. to start the union movement. Unionization ( collective bargining ) is a constitutional right that Libertarians don't talk about too much.

Collective bargaining is a right, but legislation of union demands is not a right, no more than freedom of religion is a right, but legislating that there can only be one religion is not a right.

As Matt stated, individuals have every right to bargain, but the industry has the right to ignore them, if they so choose.

As for the early days of Industrialism, few companies, compared to today, existed, and since the companies held the upper hand, there was little reason to bend to the workers. The market had to go through this transition, companies are not natural occurances, they are created by man, thus the workers of the nation had to wait until better times. But with increased competition, worker appeasement becomes a selling point to lure workers from one business to another. It is like this today, why would it be different during other times? No one forces one company to offer a better benefit package than its competitors, but it occurs.

Unionization, wage laws, etc. have detrimental effects on workers. If a company is forced to pay higher wages than the competing market, then there is less revenue to pay new workers, thus potential workers are left jobless or forced to work less desirable jobs. Companies which are barely existing, who are forced to pay higher wages, are often pushed over the edge into bankruptcy, throwing the workers out in the streets.

 

[collegiateLifter]

I'll deal with the issues later, but let me touch upon one funny thing now.

Do you work for Hillary Clinton? If you don't, clearly you have read and taken to her book

lol.

Reminds me of the unfinished ecomics thread where you called me a statist.


Kind of like, decades ago, when at a big libertarian economic convention in Switzerland, Ludwig von Mises stormed out of the room calling Milton Friedman and his cohorts "communists."

Clearly you are serrious and concerned so I will now answer your question. No I don't work for Hillary Clinton. And no I haven't read her book. AND NO I DO NOT want her to be president. I am very much concerned that Republicans willl win this election, then Bush will have his two terms, and then Hillary wins in '08. I do NOT want Hillary to be president for various reasons.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Clearly you are serrious and concerned so I will now answer your question. No I don't work for Hillary Clinton. And no I haven't read her book. AND NO I DO NOT want her to be president. I am very much concerned that Republicans willl win this election, then Bush will have his two terms, and then Hillary wins in '08. I do NOT want Hillary to be president for various reasons.

Wasn't totally serious but she is the only other person I know of who has stated (as you did) that the state knows what is best for children.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Reminds me of the unfinished ecomics thread where you called me a statist.

UNN HMMM! I think that was me

 

[Apöllo]

I see very little in these passages which suggest tax-paid funding of schooling. Not having the full texts, I cannot discern to his full meaning.

Comparing early American schooling versus modern schooling shows the failure of modern public education. The majority of the Founders had less than 10 years total schooling, most being near 2-3 years. Not to mention all were literate at the time of entering schools. For people to be as well read and reasoned as these early men demonstrates that the modern form of schooling is completely inefficient. I understand the secondary effect of public schooling being the prevention of young from entering the market place, but it still shows how poorly we teach our children over the course of 13 years.



I am neither a supporter of private vouchers, which has a slew of problems I can conceive, nor Madison's desires. My problem with vouchers is not the idea of vouchers per se, but the fact that government will introduce regulations on schools who wish to accept vouchers: discrimination policies, curriculum policies, etc. In the clamor for voucher funding, the schools will bow down to federal dictate and destroy the very essence of private education which makes them special: choice.

As for Madison, he was an imperialist, not a Jefferson, who I admire and respect.



No. The very essence of regulation is what makes public education ineffective. Allowing no choice to the constituents is the downfall of the beauracracy of education, but the boon of those in power.

Not to mention the problem of public coffers:






Show us the words of the Founders which argue for the Congress to fund public education. If you believe that the words of Madison and Jefferson argues for this idea, then there should be sufficient history to show them argue for the implementation of federally funded education. Madison stated:

"Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation." --Thomas Jefferson

"The object [of my education bill was] to bring into action that mass of talents which lies buried in poverty in every country for want of the means of development, and thus give activity to a mass of mind which in proportion to our population shall be the double or treble of what it is in most countries." --Thomas Jefferson

"This [bill] on education would [raise] the mass of the people to the high ground of moral respectability necessary to their own safety and to orderly government, and would [complete] the great object of qualifying them to secure the veritable aristoi for the trusts of government, to the exclusion of the pseudalists... I have great hope that some patriotic spirit will... call it up and make it the keystone of the arch of our government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams

"The public education... we divide into three grades: 1. Primary schools, in which are taught reading, writing, and common arithmetic, to every infant of the State, male and female. 2. Intermediate schools, in which an education is given proper for artificers and the middle vocations of life; in grammar, for example, general history, logarithms, arithmetic, plane trigonometry, mensuration, the use of the globes, navigation, the mechanical principles, the elements of natural philosophy, and, as a preparation for the University, the Greek and Latin languages. 3. An University, in which these and all other useful sciences shall be taught in their highest degree; the expenses of these institutions are defrayed partly by the public, and partly by the individuals profiting of them." --Thomas Jefferson

"My bill proposes, 1. Elementary schools in every county, which shall place every householder within three miles of a school. 2. District colleges, which shall place every father within a day's ride of a college where he may dispose of his son. 3. An university in a healthy and central situation... To all of which is added a selection from the elementary schools of subjects of the most promising genius, whose parents are too poor to give them further education, to be carried at the public expense through the colleges and university." --Thomas Jefferson

"The expense of the elementary schools for every county is proposed to be levied on the wealth of the county, and all children rich and poor to be educated at these three years gratis." --Thomas Jefferson

"[We proposed a plan] to avail the commonwealth of those talents and virtues which nature has sown as liberally among the poor as rich, and which are lost to their country by the want of means for their cultivation." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act

"The annual tribute we are paying to other countries for the education of our youth, the retention of that sum at home, and receipt of a greater from abroad which might flow to an University on an approved scale, would make it a gainful employment of the money advanced, were even dollars and cents to mingle themselves with the consideration of an higher order urging the accomplishment of this institution." --Thomas Jefferson

"I think by far the most important bill in our whole code, is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness... The tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance." --Thomas Jefferson

"[Surely no] tax can be called that which we give to our children in the most valuable of all forms, that of instruction... An addition to our contributions almost insensible... in fact, will not be felt as a burden, because applied immediately and visibly to the good of our children." --Thomas Jefferson

I could go on with these.

 

[collegiateLifter]

Wasn't totally serious but she is the only other person I know of who has stated (as you did) that the state knows what is best for children.

it was partly my fault for the way i worded it, but It is in fact your inference that is wrong.


My statement was much different than you interpretted it.

I was saying that I do not believe in legislating paternalism for adults because they should be essentially free to live their lives however they choose without harming others--- liberty principle.

Children are not in the same cateogory as adults and thus there may be legislative paternalistic laws (such provisions may include but are not limmitted to some age for smoking, anti- child pornography and pedophilia laws).

I never stated that the State knows what is best but that it is legitimate for it to (conservatively) legislate paternalistic laws with regard to minors.

 

[collegiateLifter]

UNN HMMM! I think that was me

Wrong. It was the good old overacting Matt.

What you're really saying is that you're a statist. You don't believe in individual freedoms or a right to the wealth that they have produced.

Welcome, Komrade.

http://boards.elitefitness.com/foru...1009&perpage=5&highlight=statist&pagenumber=9

 

[collegiateLifter]

The problem with ABL is that he is mixing phillosophical and legal considerations and the people they devolve from. If you want to act as the supreme court making a judgement on something. The Declaration of Independence is a great document but has no bearing on the Constituion. It most nearly led to the Articles of Confederation which also have no real bearing on the Constitution (other than the obvious that the Constitution was ratified to depose the Confederacy).

I am neither a supporter of private vouchers, which has a slew of problems I can conceive, nor Madison's desires. My problem with vouchers is not the idea of vouchers per se, but the fact that government will introduce regulations on schools who wish to accept vouchers: discrimination policies, curriculum policies, etc. In the clamor for voucher funding, the schools will bow down to federal dictate and destroy the very essence of private education which makes them special: choice.

As for Madison, he was an imperialist, not a Jefferson, who I admire and respect.

Again your problem is very complex.

What does the Supreme Court review with regards to Constitution? The convention itself, the Constitution, and the Federlist Papers among others. Not much of anything from Jefferson. For better or for worse, Jefferson was in France during the drawing up of the Constitution, while Madison was busy drawing up the Constitution.

(at this point you have to decide whether you want to debate the legal or philosophical merits of tax based schooling or 2nd amendment, etc. They are related but indeed separate.)


As a side note for ABL, while I do have admiration for the ideals of Jefferson, in reality he was a big fucking hipocrite. There is really not much worse than someone who influences millions of people in bad faith.

He was in fact an imperialist. NOT a strict constructionist like he said. For instance, he did not commission the Lewis and Clark expirement to investigate whatever dubious reason he gave-- that evades me at the moment , but instead he wanted to discover a northwest passage, create maps and prepare for westward expansion. I can dig up the journal entries from him and Lewis if you refuse to believe this.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I could go on with these.

You could go on, but you are not correct. I have read the Writings of Jefferson, especially the one referencing Adams, and I know that he was a proponent of public education.

His Education amendment, referenced in his State of the Union address, was never considered. Thus it never became constitutional.

The latter references pertained to bills for the state of Virginia, which are Constitutional, as Congress' powers are few and enumerated, while the states' are many.

 

[atlantabiolab]

The problem with ABL is that he is mixing phillosophical and legal considerations and the people they devolve from. If you want to act as the supreme court making a judgement on something. The Declaration of Independence is a great document but has no bearing on the Constituion. It most nearly led to the Articles of Confederation which also have no real bearing on the Constitution (other than the obvious that the Constitution was ratified to depose the Confederacy).

While the Declaration has no legal power, it still references, as does the Federalist papers, and the vast numbers of documents of the Convention members, the intent of the legislature.

Again your problem is very complex.

What does the Supreme Court review with regards to Constitution? The convention itself, the Constitution, and the Federlist Papers among others. Not much of anything from Jefferson. For better or for worse, Jefferson was in France during the drawing up of the Constitution, while Madison was busy drawing up the Constitution.

And?

As a side note for ABL, while I do have admiration for the ideals of Jefferson, in reality he was a big fucking hipocrite. There is really not much worse than someone who influences millions of people in bad faith.

He was in fact an imperialist. NOT a strict constructionist like he said. For instance, he did not commission the Lewis and Clark expirement to investigate whatever dubious reason he gave-- that evades me at the moment , but instead he wanted to discover a northwest passage, create maps and prepare for westward expansion. I can dig up the journal entries from him and Lewis if you refuse to believe this.

I do not dispute your claim. Unlike a Hannity or Limbaugh (who argue merits based on the relation it has to Reagan or Bush) I never argue based on men, simply the validity of the ideas, since men are fallable. As I stated, Madison wrote to great lengths on liberty in the Federalist Papers, then issued our country's first sedition laws. Kinda hypocritical.