Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
I think one way to look at it is that a constitutional conservative believes in a strict conservative interpretation of the constitution whereas a libertarian would feel that doesnt go far enough because there are things in the constitution that itself are not libertarian.
ive always been of the mindset that the non-aggression principle was more aligned with someone being a voluntaryist.
Huh. I suppose I read it too hastily. And I was a bit tired (out late last nite, didn't sleep much). This here:is what threw me. In my tired state I understood him to be making a highly qualified endorsement of democracy. Previous comment withdrawn.So any government that ALL of the governed agree to is fine with me.
From a non-philosophical political point of view, I'd SWAG that all genuine libertarians do not bother to ever vote or even to register.
A constitution is a means to an end, namely setting up a government, and it is not necessarily libertarian or conservative in nature. The libertarian view of an ideal government seeks to avoid the initiation of force, or to minimize order based on state coercion to the maximum extent possible, apart from the issue of what means, constitutions or other practical mechanisms are used to achieve this. Conservatives are attitudinally committed to minimum state power, but are clearly not systematic in their understanding of how authoritarian tendencies conflict with minimizing the size of government.
The American Constitution, as originally written and intended (based on Founders' documents and quotes) was in essence a libertarian leaning attempt to structurally minimize government, through a variety of mechanisms. It stresses "We the People" (individuals) are the sovereign governors (not monarchs or bureaucrats) of the nation, with their powers and rights expressed by a common law, and delegated through a decentralized matrix of separately sovereign states.
A federal entity was created with very limited powers to address a very short list of needs common to the states. In fact, the federal government was to be considered to have no power unless it was expressly stated in the document, as originally written or as amended. Beyond this, divisions of power between the federal branches, and between the states and the federal government was meant to further prevent the state from centralizing power and from usurping the common law, popular sovereignty basis for protecting the people's rights and freedom.
Though imperfect, this constitution has been essential to minimizing or slowing the growth of state power for a large fraction of its history. It permits libertarians and constitutional conservatives have common ground, and act as a mainstream device to stress limited government to modern audiences who have no concept of maintaining strict limits on federal power. This common ground is far more important than trying to stress differences between the two factions. Our real differences are with those who fail to accept limits, be they constitutional or ideological, on the power of the state.
Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 01-27-2015 at 11:56 PM.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron
"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton
Majority rule is not consensus (as I tried to indicate with my reference to democracy as "phony consent").
Consensus means that nobody is bound to any set of rules or enforcement unless they choose it. The ability to secede from any government you don't like means government by consent of the governed.
This was the predominant state of affairs prior to the neolithic era. It was the predominate state of affairs in North American upon the arrival of the Europeans. Among American Indian tribes, the only people who went to war were those who wanted to. And if anyone didn't like the chief of the tribe, they could walk away and take as many families with them as wanted to go. THAT is government by consensus.
Being tied to the land by agriculture caused this system to die out. But it is a valid form of society that simply needs to be revamped to take into account secession without relocation.
The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron
"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
The word "world" in that verse means "the world of non-believers". John is contrasting the world of believers (children of God) and non-believers (the rest of the world of non-believers).
The verse does not mean that Satan has control of the universe or this earth. God is in sovereign control of every atom of existence and the heavenly host...Satan also.
If the good are on one world and the evil on the other, why do bad things happen to good people? And why do they both have the same Bible?
And since we know there are bad people in this world, what does that make us?
God's in control of Satan but can't delegate to him? Not even when the Bible says so?
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
It really isn't. Libertarians believe in free association, and if a bunch of libertarians got together and all agreed to be called the "libertarian party", I don't see how that's a contradiction at all.
Plus, a libertarian party with balloons and clowns sounds kinda crunk.
//
Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://voluntaryist.com/
Branding. I would suggest that you call yourself a constitutional conservative if you're working through the GOP.
libertarianism in one sentence: Other people are not your property.
Well, if I thought I was on my way elsewhere, I'd just go ahead and do it
Probably something close to minarchism. I just don't believe the idea that there shouldn't be any civil magistrate with authority at all is very Biblical, and there are too many theological problems.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Well, apparently some folks here seem to believe that every sheeple flock requires a shepherd (to do their thinking for them).
Connect With Us