You and me Monkeys! Libertarianism or bust...!

[_barrelomonkeys]

Hey Ren, I'm going to read that thread.. and you're right you did link that for me before. I just forgot, so you're not the only one! :D

Don't get too paradigm shifted. You know this is civics 101 in America. It's just not what you've been exposed to. And after talking with you about this I realized how much I view these issues through my own American lenses. I'm going to have to really seek out some other answers. The "American" answers looked great to me and made sense. But that makes sense if I'm not really exposed to anything else.

I think the UK has a rather fluid constitution. Is that correct? It is can change and adapt at the will of the Parliament. In America the constitution is written as a formal contract between the state and the citizens. The founders of America wanted it to be very difficult to change this contract. This has been good in some ways and bad in others.

About the constitution, why did you see it as being nonessential or having a problem with it in a "libertarian framework"? This is probably that I'm looking at things from political philosophy that was taught to me in an American University that helped to shape America. This is pretty much how I view it because that's what I know. I'd really love to know how it would have worked in your mind.

I sort of see a constitution (really it's just a contract) as necessary to limit the government's scope and to ensure that it doesn't overstep its bounds. This is sort of difficult for me to try to explain. I feel like I need to write a text book for you to understand my thoughts on this that came from those political philosphers that I ripped them off from. ;)

Ever heard the term necessary evil in regards to the government? That would pretty much describe (I believe I'm safe in stating this) the US Libertarian mindset when it comes to government and the power the government had.


That was a great question about Utah! I need to think about this! I'll also get back to some of your other scenarios and questions.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Let's imagine that literally every single person in a given state suddenly decides that - starting tomorrow - they are all becoming communists. (Let's imagine that this isn't' a republic - it has no 'constitution' that could oppose such a drastic change in attitude) Rather than any goverment official coming round to 'take anything from anybody', everybody is actually taking their stuff to the goverment of their own free will and saying 'Here ya go', entrusting them to create the classless utopia they are all giddily dreaming about.

Okay, you first of all I think this will NEVER happen! LMAO! People like their "stuff" a lot! But I'll go with it.

Every single person that is, except you (Or me, or whoever). You don't want this. At all.
So eventually someone turns up - at the border of your property - from the new communist goverment and asks 'OK - so when are you bringing over your "stuff" for assimulation into the Borg collective then?'
You - shotgun in hand - tell the goverment official that they'll get their hands on any of your 'stuff' over your dead body.

Now - before we go any further, have their been any attacks on Libertarianism up to this point?

No. As long as the dissenting citizen can keep his/her property.

But if the goverment official were to call in the cavalry, I would absolutely agree that that would be a direct attack on Libertarian principles. I mean, forget arguments about 'It's only the state that can acknowledge ownership anyway...' and all that malarky. I think any 'true' Libertarian should recognise the sheer attack on 'liberty' that act would entail.

Wow! That quote, "It's only the state that can acknowledge ownership anyway.." Sounds INSANE to me! :D

I would say the state is (outside of this scenario) enacted to protect property, and that includes persons. Can you explain what that means to me? As well as all of the other malarky.

Here's what I beleive the 'Libertarian' answer from the goverment official would be:
"Fair enough.". And then he walks off.

Right.

You get to keep everything you currently own. (As was established and agreed before the 'shift' in politics all around you). Your land. Your house. Your car. Your 'stuff'. All yours.
BUT, you are no longer considered 'An official member of the state', by the new communist state. (I've been wracking my brain with a term to use, and this is the best I can come up with right now...)

I don't disagree with that within this scenario. That's actually something pretty interesting to consider within the frame of the contract between citizen and state and when the contract changes how does the citizen react.

Ok - now I could go on for pages and pages with this example situation - that certainly isn't the end of the story of course! For one, the practicalities involved - I'll freely admit - are pretty ridiculous. But what I'm hoping is that this get's across what I meant when I said "ALL people should have the option of opting out of society". I've made this example rediculously extreme to get the principle across, and also to try and disconnect it from 'real world' states - because I think that can muddy the waters a bit. This isn't America, or the UK, or any other known country. It's just a 'generic state'.

Well as a Libertarian I would have agreed with this.

My position is:
No-one should be forced into a communist state. And I mean no-one.
But at the same time, I beleive that no minority should be able to tell the vast majority that the state CANNOT be communist! Going back to my extreme example, could it be considered to be in accordance with libertarian principles if - just because YOU didn't want the state to be communist, that would mean that every single other person in the state - with a sigh of moral indignation - have to take back 'all their stuff', and get busy with the capitalist dream?

Right. Well when a minority dictates to the majority that wouldn't fit into a free society either. That's what I talked about earlier with the constant back and forth between minority and majority. This is why American politics is so shizoid.

But anyway, before I waffle on endlessly on this example, maybe it's best if you indicate if your even able to take the situation seriously - or whether you see the example as flawed for all kinds of reasons. What I'm worried about is that I'll waffle on for pages and pages, only to find that you find the situation a flawed one (as far as sensible examination) right from the off...
I'm guessing the objection may not be with the literal situation itself, but more with the way it comes about. I'm guessing the objection might be that 'It just wouldn't happen that way...'.

The first problem I see is that people like their "stuff". Secondly I didn't hear anything about the government in your scenario. Why are they there? Who created them? Decided upon their duties? What ARE their duties? Would there still be elections? If so just think about the chaos when everyone wants all their crap back! :D

[_Ren]

Don't get too paradigm shifted.

Well, if I should, then I should :)
But right now, I'm probably not as shifted as I made out. At this point, I am currently convinced of the idea that 'some kind' of 'US-style' consititution is required. (As opposed to the UK 'equivalent' - see below)

But at the moment, I'm trying to ponder how 'thin' I beleive this consitutuation should ideally be.
To give you an idea of the way I'm thinking, I'm pondering whether it should be literally be as thin as only 2 points:

* Democracy (With all the appropiate details. Just assume it's a 'good' democratic system - whatever 'good' means to you...)
* Free speech

Very thin - right. Would you even think of that as a 'constitution'?
...well - I'll go into my reasoning for it's berevity in a bit. But first, the UK 'constitution' (assuming if it makes sense to use that word in the same sense as the US version)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti ... nstitution

It seems like a fair and accurate summary.
Proabably the section labelled 'Flexibility' is the most relavent section:

Since there is neither entrenched constitutional law nor a formal separation of powers, Parliament has the ability to change almost any aspect of the constitution at will. The constitution is therefore often spoken of by political scientists as being "organic;" that is, it has "evolved" over time since its medieval origins.[citation needed] In theory, its flexibility makes it responsive to political and social change especially since many political principles are simply conventions; however, the absence of entrenchment means that in theory far-reaching changes could be made without significant popular support. For example, most of (the) Magna Carta has been repealed since 1828 . The courts' role is important, but not imperative. The courts may not question any act of parliament,[4] but have ruled on constitutional matters whereby two statutes are in conflict - most notably with regards European matters. The courts also have jurisdiction over the extent of Royal Prerogative where not limited by statute.

For instance, until recently, there was no modern statute or document that attempted to codify the rights of citizens (e.g. freedom of speech) in the UK, common law precedents being the main source of "rights", referred to as 'civil rights'. Now, through the adoption of European Union law, and the European Convention on Human Rights, citizens are deemed to have certain negative rights that were previously unspecified in the legal system. These are enacted in the European Communities Act 1972 and Human Rights Act 1998, respectively. Constitutional reform has been particularly rapid in the past decade, and include the Human Rights Act; devolution of powers of government to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; a significant reform of the House of Lords and a Freedom of Information Act.

See - this is the culture that I'm coming from ;)
No part of our consitituation is 'set in stone'. Potentially, the entire thing could be completely re-written over time. Not exactly likely, but not out of the question.

I was gonna go into explaining more, but I wanna think about this whole issue some more. Not only to make sure my viewpoint makes sense, but also to make sure I say it right.
Watch this space...!

[_barrelomonkeys]

Don't get too paradigm shifted.

Well, if I should, then I should :)
But right now, I'm probably not as shifted as I made out. At this point, I am currently convinced of the idea that 'some kind' of 'US-style' consititution is required. (As opposed to the UK 'equivalent' - see below)

But at the moment, I'm trying to ponder how 'thin' I beleive this consitutuation should ideally be.
To give you an idea of the way I'm thinking, I'm pondering whether it should be literally be as thin as only 2 points:

* Democracy
* Free speech

Very thin - right. Would you even think of that as a 'constitution'?
...well - I'll go into my reasoning for it's berevity in a bit. But first, the UK 'constitution' (assuming if it makes sense to use that word in the same sense as the US version)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti ... nstitution

It seems like a fair and accurate summary.
Proabably the section labelled 'Flexibility' is the most relavent section:

Since there is neither entrenched constitutional law nor a formal separation of powers, Parliament has the ability to change almost any aspect of the constitution at will. The constitution is therefore often spoken of by political scientists as being "organic;" that is, it has "evolved" over time since its medieval origins.[citation needed] In theory, its flexibility makes it responsive to political and social change especially since many political principles are simply conventions; however, the absence of entrenchment means that in theory far-reaching changes could be made without significant popular support. For example, most of (the) Magna Carta has been repealed since 1828 . The courts' role is important, but not imperative. The courts may not question any act of parliament,[4] but have ruled on constitutional matters whereby two statutes are in conflict - most notably with regards European matters. The courts also have jurisdiction over the extent of Royal Prerogative where not limited by statute.

For instance, until recently, there was no modern statute or document that attempted to codify the rights of citizens (e.g. freedom of speech) in the UK, common law precedents being the main source of "rights", referred to as 'civil rights'. Now, through the adoption of European Union law, and the European Convention on Human Rights, citizens are deemed to have certain negative rights that were previously unspecified in the legal system. These are enacted in the European Communities Act 1972 and Human Rights Act 1998, respectively. Constitutional reform has been particularly rapid in the past decade, and include the Human Rights Act; devolution of powers of government to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; a significant reform of the House of Lords and a Freedom of Information Act.

See - this is the culture that I'm coming from ;)
No part of our consitituation is 'set in stone'. Potentially, the entire thing could be completely re-written over time. Not exactly likely, but not out of the question.

I was gonna go into explaining more, but I wanna think about this whole issue some more. Not only to make sure my viewpoint makes sense, but also to make sure I say it right.
Watch this space...!

Thanks for the link. I was actually just reading up on that on wiki. I've studied it before... but that was 10 years ago and I don't think about this stuff all that much anymore. My husband as a matter of fact will be pissed when he comes home and sees I have all my old books laid out. He just wants me to sit around and look pretty and HATES it when I go nutters on this stuff. :D

Let me ask you this. A democracy and free speech? So in a democracy wouldn't the people that were in the majority force their beliefs on those that were in the minority? The dissenters could scream and gnash their teeth but that would be it. That doesn't seem like an ideal constitution to me. Perhaps more protections? What do you see as essentials to living in a free society?

[_Ren]

I'm probably gonna be playing catch-up for a bit here, but just to quickly cover this point:

Wow! That quote, "It's only the state that can acknowledge ownership anyway.." Sounds INSANE to me! :D

I would say the state is (outside of this scenario) enacted to protect property, and that includes persons. Can you explain what that means to me? As well as all of the other malarky.

How about if I put it this way:
"The 'imaginary' border-line humans have agreed on between the US and Canada is about as meaningful as a dog pissing on a lamp-post to 'mark it's territory'".

I'm not saying I truly beleive it. I'm saying it's 'the argument'.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Let me ask you this Ren, do you think it would be possible that a majority of the citizens that passed legislation would ever pass legislation that would create an even and fair playing field for those in the minority? I think it's quite possible that the majority would enjoy having the power to totally control legislation and would therefore create legislation that would ensure they stayed in the majority.

[Guest]

Let me ask you this. A democracy and free speech? So in a democracy wouldn't the people that were in the majority force their beliefs on those that were in the minority? The dissenters could scream and gnash their teeth but that would be it. That doesn't seem like an ideal constitution to me. Perhaps more protections? What do you see as essentials to living in a free society?

Let me be unreasonably annoying and answer this question with a counter-question:

Why did slavery exist for so many years in the US, considering the words that were written - in plain black and white - in the U.S. consititution?
Were people just not reading it right?

[_barrelomonkeys]

I'm probably gonna be playing catch-up for a bit here, but just to quickly cover this point:

Wow! That quote, "It's only the state that can acknowledge ownership anyway.." Sounds INSANE to me! :D

I would say the state is (outside of this scenario) enacted to protect property, and that includes persons. Can you explain what that means to me? As well as all of the other malarky.

How about if I put it this way:
"The 'imaginary' border-line humans have agreed on between the US and Canada is about as meaningful as a dog pissing on a lamp-post to 'mark it's territory'".

I'm not saying I truly beleive it. I'm saying it's 'the argument'.

Oh! I understand. Territorial lines. I thought you meant property within a state. I believe the only reason a government is formed is to protect citizens lives and property. There's a trade off. A pact between the citizens to form together and create a state (government) for mutual protection. This, I would say, is the start of any government and essentially why I view property as a right.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Let me ask you this. A democracy and free speech? So in a democracy wouldn't the people that were in the majority force their beliefs on those that were in the minority? The dissenters could scream and gnash their teeth but that would be it. That doesn't seem like an ideal constitution to me. Perhaps more protections? What do you see as essentials to living in a free society?

Let me unreasonably annoying and answer this question with a counter-question:

Why did slavery exist for so many years in the US, considering the words that were written - in plain black and white - in the U.S. consititution?
Were people just not reading it right?

OH! Love that! I was in a poli-sci class and we had to debate as to whether the founding fathers were hypocrites. I took the side that indeed they were! I was the only one in the class that took that on and the entire class voted against me having won. My professor overruled and said I did indeed win the debate.

What words are you talking about in the Constitution? I think you may be thinking of the Declaration of Independence. But "all men are created equal" actually bothered many of their conscience and they were aware that while they rebelled against the yoke of slavery (a bit of rhetoric meant for England) that they owned their own slaves.

The constitution and slavery is actually a pretty good wiki looksie if you're interested. There was nothing unanimous and it was left for a future time, and finally hashed out in war.

But my point is that those in power (let's say men) don't want to relinquish any of their power to (let's say women and the right to vote, own property) those in the minority. Those in power make it quite difficult for those not in power to be able to create any legislation or changes. This happens at a faster pace in the UK because there's not all the stumbling blocks to amendments as we have here.

[Guest]

You've made a lot of good points, and asked lots of good questions Monk. (I want a shortened name to call you. Is Monk ok? I kinda like it!)
But it's getting late here in the 'who knows what our constitution is going to look like tomorrow' UK, and I don't know whether I'm gonna be at my computer tomorrow. I may actually - you know, like 'Go outside' and 'See real people' or something instead. Seems a bit drastic, but what the hey...

So might be a day or two, but I will end up hitting all the points. I've started, so I'll finish!

But it's getting good - no? :D