• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why Constitutional Interpretation is Dangerous to Liberty

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
So you've identified how you've been avoiding my quesiton. When am I going to get an answer?
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
I'm glad you finally admitted to what you are up to.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

This discussion is in danger of becoming worthless. Both sides are debating like children. Don't dispute this point; simply admit your own culpability. It will be better for all of us.

And I mean all of you.

__________

The debate basically boils down to the way certain founders imagined things to be, vs how things are in practice.

I'm well aware of Jefferson's views on the issue; these are nothing new to me. It's also in some ways irrelevant to the current government we live under, outside of political theory for its own sake. These ideas are certainly worth discussing, but to implement them will require a complete overhaul of the entire federal government (and many state governments too). In the meantime, I am happy to have my practical ability to exercise my RKBA furthered by the courts, a process we are seeing now.

I'd like a complete overhaul, but I see it as unlikely. In the meantime, while I disapprove of basically avery aspect of our current government (including the legislative and executive branches), I'm going to make use of what meager scraps the courts allow us. And right now the courts are doing more than our legislature, or our executive.

By the way, I find WFL's stance on this issue a little amusing. We had a very intense debate about the nature of Jeffersonian (sometimes called democratic) Republicanism. Do you remember the thread? You accused me of quoting Jefferson out of context, and when I showed that accusation to be incorrect, you fell back on "It is sad that you quote a man in his aging years giving in to populism"?

The contradiction I see is basically this: Jefferson railed against a judicial oligarchy, but this was part and parcel of his notion that:
The further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government of the ingredient of republicanism.
Interested parties may want to review the thread in question:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/25742-4.html


It occurs to me that the anti-federalists lost. The federalist system is what our current monstrosity evolved from. The elitists had their way, and we have a government of elites rather than a government of the people, all under the guise of "protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority" (a noble cause when engaged in honestly). In some ways, it seems as though it is irrelevant to criticize the Supreme Court from an anti-federalist perspective. Under our Federalist system, they're the branch whose tyranny mitigates the even worse tyranny of the other two.

How do you reconcile the disregard of the Constitution demonstrated by all three branches of our government with your notion that a government run by the people is an evil democracy?

Who is the bulwark that protects the rights of the individual against the onslaught of the socialist masses? We ourselves have failed in that role. You argue it is not the be the elites, the judicial oligarchy who currently fills that role. Who, then? If not the People, the evil democratic We, then who?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

I'm going to quote myself from the above-referenced thread, because of how right I think I am (modified for accuracy and clarity):

marshaul wrote:
Jefferson's system didn't fail us, because it was never implemented and it never had the opportunity to "crumble on itself'. The truth is, what you call "republicanism" did fail us: all the "populist" (and "socialist") movements have been pushed by elites with an agenda using the extant [Federalist] republican system. Jefferson saw this as inevitable, and believed that the way to prevent it was to place the responsibility for preserving (and the inevitably resulting de facto power to abrogate, at least in law) rights directly in the hands of the people (where it ultimately lies anyway) so as to encourage a sense of responsibility in people to protect their own rights, instead of relying on their political party -- the so-called "representatives" in whose hands power statutorily lies -- to tell them what their politics are and how they should react to the world around them.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
By the way, I find WFL's stance on this issue a little amusing. We had a very intense debate about the nature of Jeffersonian (sometimes called democratic) Republicanism. Do you remember the thread? You accused me of quoting Jefferson out of context, and when I showed that accusation to be incorrect, you fell back on "It is sad that you quote a man in his aging years giving in to populism"?

The contradiction I see is basically this: Jefferson railed against a judicial oligarchy, but this was part and parcel of his notion that:
The further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government of the ingredient of republicanism.


This is nothing new. He argues for rule by the elite because common people are stupid and can't be trusted- then turns around and says the elite are taking all our freedom and the common people need to do something about it.

Just last page he railed against a free Wall Street and regulation in the same sentence.

He's full of contradiction.That's why I love him so much, because he gives me never ending lulz every time I go to this site.



As for how everyone is acting, come off it. This thread was worthless rightfrom the worthless original post. SV is legitimately pissed and has every right to be. I got passed that point awhile go when I realizedthatthe idiots in this grouphaven't changed in fifty years and they aren't ever going to, sonow I just have fun with them.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

marshaul wrote:
It occurs to me that the anti-federalists lost. The federalist system is what our current monstrosity evolved from.
"Monstrosity?" The two most noisome posters in this thread are pleased as punch with how things are currently structured.

The elitists had their way, and we have a government of elites rather than a government of the people, all under the guise of "protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority"
A tyranny of the majority is as terrifying as a tyranny of an oligarchy. Almost all Americans want one form of tyranny. The perennial elections are simply popularity contests for which brand of evil will rule its bailiwick for a spell.

Both sides, however, will unite against you if you advocate no tyranny, at all. Americans are only happy when their neighbour is somehow shackled.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
marshaul wrote:
It occurs to me that the anti-federalists lost. The federalist system is what our current monstrosity evolved from.
"Monstrosity?" The two most noisome posters in this thread are pleased as punch with how things are currently structured.

The elitists had their way, and we have a government of elites rather than a government of the people, all under the guise of "protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority"
A tyranny of the majority is as terrifying as a tyranny of an oligarchy. Almost all Americans want one form of tyranny. The perennial elections are simply popularity contests for which brand of evil will rule its bailiwick for a spell.

Both sides, however, will unite against you if you advocate no tyranny, at all. Americans are only happy when their neighbour is somehow shackled.


Strawman and an argument for anarchy. Nine pages later, still spewing the same crap.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
SV is legitimately pissed and has every right to be.
No, he doesn't. He's an anti-gun, anti-Liberty poster interloping in a forum that is built for purposes completely contrary to his.

It would be absurd to walk through MOMA and decry the lack of Dutch masters being exhibited.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
marshaul wrote:
It occurs to me that the anti-federalists lost. The federalist system is what our current monstrosity evolved from.
"Monstrosity?" The two most noisome posters in this thread are pleased as punch with how things are currently structured.

The elitists had their way, and we have a government of elites rather than a government of the people, all under the guise of "protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority"
A tyranny of the majority is as terrifying as a tyranny of an oligarchy. Almost all Americans want one form of tyranny. The perennial elections are simply popularity contests for which brand of evil will rule its bailiwick for a spell.

Both sides, however, will unite against you if you advocate no tyranny, at all. Americans are only happy when their neighbour is somehow shackled.

How to achieve the proper balance, and resulting lack of tyranny?

One could make the argument that, however plain the Constitution may be, its aims were not achieved, and so the Constitution itself is a failed attempt at that balance.

Jefferson felt as much.

Ultimately, I would support a Jeffersonian Republic where the people are the ultimate determiners of their own liberty, and simply advocate and work for no tyranny imposed upon the individual by the majority. It seems this is the way society really works, anyway: government merely places obstacles in the process, attempting to be the arbiter of socially normative behavior. Such a system would resemble minarchism; many would call it "anarchism".

What do you think? You generally provide very little constructive input. That doesn't exactly make for the most instructive debates, especially for previously unengaged parties.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
Both sides, however, will unite against you if you advocate no tyranny, at all. Americans are only happy when their neighbour is somehow shackled.
Strawman and an argument for anarchy.
And there it is. To the intruders in our midst, a lack of tyranny is anarchy. America is in deep trouble.

My statement that

Almost all Americans want one form of tyranny.
is absolutely true.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

marshaul wrote:
How to achieve the proper balance, and resulting lack of tyranny?
Look at your own words. Look at just what you've revealed about yourself by using the word "proper." "Proper" implies some sort of desired end, with the means after-designed in hopes of achieving this end.

Libertarians concern themselves with right means, not desired ends. We can't reverse-engineer a free society, nor can we be sure where freedom will take us. We might have a Salzburg; we might have Bedford-Stuyvesant. Wherever we end up, we will arrive there honestly, and free.

One could make the argument that, however plain the Constitution may be, its aims were not achieved, and so the Constitution itself is a failed attempt at that balance. Jefferson felt as much.
I'm no great believer in constitutional government, especially when it can be so easily undone by an unchecked, evil oligarchy of a court.

Ultimately, I would support a Jeffersonian Republic where the people are the ultimate determiners of their own liberty, and simply advocate and work for no tyranny imposed upon the individual by the majority. It seems this is the way society really works, anyway. Government just puts obstacles in the process.
Really, people clamor for the government to shackle their neighbour, and the government obliges. Perhaps it is the human condition to be most comfortable in obeisance.

What do you think? You generally provide very little constructive input.
Then you're not doing your assignments. I'd rather not spoon feed it to you. The best lessons are autodidactic. If you ponder this well, and if you study the proper limits upon which one man may morally intrude upon another, you'll arrive at the only possible ethical conclusion.



Ah, Hell, I suspect this Headline News lot needs it simple and blunt.

"Only a minimal state is justified." Robert Nozick.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Don't presume to lecture me on ethics. My libertarianism is quite well developed from a moral/ethical foundation.

The right means are the rights ends. This is the only presumable meaning of "proper". It is nowhere implied in what I wrote that I am concerned with ends over means. This does not mean one cannot refer to results when discussing means. The proper (ethical) means lead to the proper (ethical) result, by definition. Therefore, proper result implies proper means. You've read too much into my question, presumed beyond your knowledge of my own understanding.

Exactly how little education do you presume I have? Do you care to insult me by implication any further?

Have I shown you such disrespect?

Perhaps if you'd assume I'm at a lever near or equal to your own we could have more productive discussions. I'm not in need of lecturing or any other talking-down-to.

You make points about things I post that are long-accepted foundations of my philosophy, as though they were concepts I had never explored. You address things at an elementary level, when the post in question is already instructed by the very idea you seek to point out. Perhaps if you'd consider that I agree with these concepts, you might be able to read my posts in such a way that does not make you feel that I need a lecture. Because you have yet to state a single position I have not already considered or am not already in agreement with in your entire time on this forum.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

marshaul wrote:
Don't presume to lecture me on ethics. My libertarianism is quite well developed from a moral/ethical foundation.

The right means are the rights ends. This is the implied meaning of "proper".

Exactly how little education do you presume I have? Do you care to insult me by implication any further?

Have I shown you such disrespect?
Well, apologies for the affront, but don't carry such existential import into your arguments.

Means and ends are, and must necessarily be, different concepts.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Don't presume to lecture me on ethics. My libertarianism is quite well developed from a moral/ethical foundation.

The right means are the rights ends. This is the implied meaning of "proper".

Exactly how little education do you presume I have? Do you care to insult me by implication any further?

Have I shown you such disrespect?
Well, apologies for the affront, but don't carry such existential import into your arguments.

Means and ends are, and must necessarily be, different concepts.
Indeed. But one is a function of the other. See my clarification above.

Oh, and apology accepted.

Since a libertarian is concerned with means, the means are his ends. So, while the concepts are distinct, that distinction is not always of concern to the libertarian.
 
Top