Can a liberal get some insight??

Discussion in 'Politics' started by eddro, May 16, 2011.

  1. So, I'm here looking for a little insight. I've really just gotten into politics since the 08 elections. Been on the GC forums for some time but just recently started viewing this section. Looks like a large libertarian group here which has peaked my interests as I too, as a general rule, believe people should be able to do as they will as long as it's not infringing on others rights. I would consider myself a pot smoking secular hippy-type and thus quite despondent with our current president and policies.

    Ok, enough with the background. Sry.
    Insofar as I can glean, you all (libertarians), and feel free to correct me, would like the power to go to the states and get the government our of our lives to a large extent. Sounds good so far.

    So, I guess my first concern is one on religion/rights so to speak. I was raised in one of the most conservative states, Oklahoma. Long gone, thank goodness, but if this state were to have it their way, Shiiit, look out. Already no liquor on Sunday. Maybe never again. 3 point beer, waste. Pot? Never. Birth control, abortion? Hell no. Creationism would be taught in school and just generally living with the bible as a guide. (all speculation of course, by trust me, I lived there 20 yrs.

    Same could hold true for conservatives from liberal states that would allow state governments to control "everything".

    So, my real question is how can we let states rule themselves and still protect individuals rights/freedoms? Doesn't the government at least 'try' to protect the minorities with little or no voice.

    I'm not here to berate or be berated so please, if you have some constructive insight please share. Thanks.
  2. The US Constitution protects every citizen of the union's basic rights, and Oklahoma would be bound by those laws.

    Any law or power not explicit in the Constitution would be up to Oklahoma to decide, like drug laws or education.

    IMO you shouldn't be living in a state where the people don't have a similar belief system as you, and that's the beauty of having 50 choices instead of 1.
  3. To make liberty to fully potential is to abolish the all of the states together.
  4. + rep for coming in and asking a question rather than assuming anything.

    I had started to reply but i know of 4-5 people who will for sure answer this question more thoroughly than i can. So ill allow them to do the details better justice ... however
    the short answer is even the states are not allowed to infringe upon constitutional rights, and on a smaller scale, its easier to control what your government is doing (collectively amongst the states citizens.)

    Your not going to avoid people getting together and attempting to create a community in which certain behavior is off limits. While there are other options, in the very least, you know there are OTHER states who believe in liberty, and you could always head to those.
  5. #5 NasaJoe, May 16, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2011
    Not sure if your question was specifically aimed towards the department of education, but...I dont think i'm down for eliminating the department of education.. Imo they've made too much progress as a collective group of intellectuals. I can see how privatizing the schools may provide for more qualified teachers / more competition in the hiring atmosphere, but I simply think many states would provide a substantially worse / biased education education than the education they're already getting, even with its flaws.

    There's already private / charter schools etc..
  6. Bad idea because you would force the people of Maine to be just like the people of Georgia or California.

  7. They can't compete with a Federal monopoly on affordable education, that's why they have to cater to the elite.

    You do realize the Federal government didn't get involved until 1979, right?

  8. While I agree and did, not everyone can just leave. I find myself very fortunate to be able to do so, but there are many reason this isn't feasible. Jobs, funds, families. Again, who will protect the minorities of any state?

  9. The department of education is unconstitutional and a failure. You could make the same argument for eliminating the "war on drugs" as you could the department of education. Both have ever increasing budgets, layers of federal bureaucracy, and terrible results when looking at their stated mission/goals. Oh, did I mention? Both are unconstitutional. :p

    It's just another bureaucratic nightmare that is Washington DC which usually results in a money pit with declining or worsening results.

    I can guarantee the local or state governments could do a much better job than that which is mandated from DC bureaucrats. One size usually doesn't fit all, unless of course we are talking about the Bill of Rights.

    hey federal gubmint - let's create the department of education (bureaucracy). Education levels decline. Shit, what can we do? I know, let's throw more money at it! That'll work. Nope, didn't seems to have made schools worse. What should we do? I know, let's throw EVEN MORE money at it...and repeat until, well...forever.

    Here is some info I posted in another thread on the DOE:

    10 Facts About K-12 Education Funding

    The Education Bubble - B. T. Donleavy - Mises Daily

    The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan - 1988

    Bad News, Comrades: Reading Did Not Improve

    Enterprising Education: Doing Away with the Public School System

    Republicans and Education Centralization - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. - Mises Daily

    The Free Market: With Education Like This

    Education: Is America Spending Too Much?

    Just because your intentions are good and the will you want to impose on everyone "feels" right doesn't make it right, or Constitutional.
  10. No system is perfect, but I think the one that maximizes freedom is the closest to it. As it is the minority is already oppressed, and I would rather be able to move to another state than have to move to another country.

    I don't think it is hard to move from state to state either, part of the union was making interstate travel easy.

  11. If our Federal Government followed the Constitution we wouldn't have many of the problems we do today. In a Constitutional Republic the minority is supposed to have a voice. Over the past 100 years or so we've been perverted into thinking we have a "democracy" in America where majority or mob rule, rules. It is unfortunate for sure.

    What individual rights and freedoms are you talking about outside of what is listed in our Constitution and Bill of Rights? Could you be more specific, if you don't mind?
  12. aaronman is hitting it clean but i will re-enforce the idea of the 50 vs 1 idea. oklahoma will never be any different, regardless of government control you can't control how people think...yet. but other states will offer a haven for those of a different mindset.

    think of it in terms of a market place for policy. the mass of people voting with their feet and taking their families and businesses to other states will do more to "force" oklahoma to loosen up than any federal authority ever could. as their tax base dwindles to nothing they will try to come up with ideas to improve it....of course oklahoma (to continue the analogy) could end up being a dumping ground for troglodyte social conservatives...either way its a win.

    and don't tell me for a second that anybody can't leave. my grandmother and grandfather hopped freight trains out of south dakota during the great depression with a 2 year old and one in the oven. all it takes is will
  13. Wow, shit guys. Thanks for all the input. I'm gonna look over it all, and please keep it coming. I actually have to head out and I'll reply back asap, but one more, And this one is lible to send the roof off, but why all the hubbub about strict adherence to the constitution. I mean, I know the significance of the constitution in developing our nation, but it seems foolhearted to want to hang on to every single point. In this fast changing global world, far different than when the const. was drafted, it seems counter productive. I guess I just see progress in a different way. Peace.

  14. The beauty of the constitution is that it was designed to be able to change with the times.
  15. The ideas of the Constitution are never outdated as they simply promote maximum Liberty and minimum tyranny, AKA FREEDOM. It leaves room for change via Constitutional Amendments.

    No principle was emphasized more vigorously during the Constitutional Convention than the necessity of limiting the authority of the federal government.

    How has that worked out for everyone? Remember, we are on a marijuana forum and the feds think they can say whether or not it should be legal for EVERYONE. That's the opposite of how our Constitution, and our Republic is supposed to work. There is no Constitutional Authority for them to do this. Being apathetic or saying that the Constitution is outdated has only helped allow these types of federal infringements on your rights. The people who thought up Prohibition were "progressives" remember, using the same logic that the Constitution was "outdated". ;)

  16. Strict adherence to the Constitution is what makes us a Republic and not a Democracy, it's part of the "checks and balances".

    Instead of 51% whimsically ruling 49% in a single vote, we have 2/3rds of the Federal representatives proposing an amendment which then has to be approved by 3/4ths of the State representatives.
  17. Can someone explain to me how a decentralized government would be any less effective/rampant in stepping on rights of indaviduals?
  18. What if one state decides it doesn't like the constitution and does infringe on its citizens contitutional rights? If there is no longer one central government, who would enforce the constitution?
  19. correct me if i'm wrong..

    but there would be a federal government.. and that really should one of their few roles.. making sure the states adhere to the constitution.

  20. decentralized authority is easier to influence as a single person. think of it in terms of diffusion. in a centralized federal government you are one voice in 350 million. in a state you are one voice in...what 25 million...10 million. in a smaller setting you single voice is a higher percentage of the opinion actually does matter more.

    now you are getting into the realm of the "enumerated powers" of the central government. us constitution nutters aren't suggesting for one minute that the feds should not enforce adherence to the constitution....that is one of their sole duties. the problem is the feds don't do what they are supposed to and then turn around and give themselves authority to do what is beyond their charter.

Share This Page