RoR: Forum

Steve,

Shifting power to the states is still 'shifting power.' I'm for less power, period. That's different.

OTH, I'm for direct elections in all cases--in order to take power our of the hands of any group and to restore power to individuals.

As the term is normally understood (Wiki?), 'checks and balances' refers to the relationship of power between the three branches of government, regardless of level--state, local or fed.

This, obviously, says nothing about the amount of power that government has to begin with. Rather, only again, it refers to the manner in which it's divided, checked, and balanced, so to speak.

Eva

(Edited by Matthews on 1/13, 5:42pm)

Post 41

Monday, January 13, 2014 - 10:56pm

Eva,

Shifting power to the states is still 'shifting power.' I'm for less power, period. That's different.

I agree that it is shifting power - that is what I said. And I'm also for less power. But we started with a government that had less power and now it has much more. How did that happen? Well, the checks and balances need to be tweaked because as they currently exist, the fed has been able to gain too much power AND system is now out of balance.

There is a good reason the most progressive president we've ever had wanted to get rid of the ability of the states to be represented in the senate by members elected by state legislatures.

Shifting power to the states is one of the few effective means of reducing ALL power. When the states have more power, they can use it to reduce the power at all levels.

You can't just wish there was less power in the whole system... you have to provide a mechanism that will actually work to reduce power. Then your checks and balances need to keep it at less power.
-----------------

...I'm for direct elections in all cases--in order to take power our of the hands of any group and to restore power to individuals.

Restore it? It already is in the hands of the individuals. We individual directly elect senators and house members. And it isn't providing a decrease in power to government, is it?
-----------------

As the term is normally understood (Wiki?), 'checks and balances' refers to the relationship of power between the three branches of government, regardless of level--state, local or fed.

That is a bit of the Progressives revisionist history. Checks and balances once upon a time included the balance of power between states and the federal government. It was the driving issue in convening the constitutional convention. It is in the heart of several of the amendments to the constitution. The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers were concerned with the states having enough power to block the federal government's growth.

Post 42

Thursday, January 16, 2014 - 6:30am

This is the old argument of the Hamiltonian vs the Jeffersonian view of the federal government... one should read Hamilton's Curse, by Dilorenzo to see the consequences of the one view over the other...

Post 43

Friday, January 17, 2014 - 2:46pm

So okay...let's forget about a Wiki-definition of check and balance vs that of Steve's.
Whatever you want to call it, he and Robert are for 'states rights'. I'm not.

This is because , historically, states have done an abysmal job of protecting individual rights. And by 'historical' I mean since the deaths of both Jeff and Ham.

Moreover, my bet is that, assuming an afterlife, they'd both be laughing themselves silly to hear contemporary argument that prioritized their views over what's been going on for the last 200 years.

What I'm for is the securing of individual liberties that states have either crushed or ignored. So in passing, let me tell you that my grandfather participated in Civil Rights, and was jail and attacked by the white trash element who defended their priveleges under the banner of 'states rights' that you advocate.

Much of what passes as 'excessive federal government' comes from public and individual appeals of redress againt states denial of what we now take for granted. As a good example, I'd suggest reading 'Gideon's Trumpet'--the securing of habeas corpus for those too poor to afford legal assistance.

Consistent with the securing of individual liberties, would come the right of popular referendum at all levels: abolishing the electoral college, for example.

That someone would claim to want 'individual liberties and would want to deny the people of a state popular election of the senators is positively amazing. This indicates ulterior motive by strongly suggesting that, "I'm for such and such (lower taxes), however that may be achieved. If we need a 50- state dictatorship, that's fine, because the means justifies the ends."

Well, I'm for lowering taxes, too. The sound, acceptable argument is to free up money for investment to create jobs. The federals should referee to see that this extra money indeed goes into investment--not, as it were, to be wasted on stock-market gambling or a larger yacht.

Regrettably, the soundness of the economic argument gets overwhelmed with the clamor created by the association of honest businesspersons with ignorant, bribe-taking, pig-fucking rednecks who get elected from counties which forbid the purchase of alcohol, have no accredited high school, yet legalize the marriage of 13-year old cousins (or so I understand....).

These are the pipples with whom Steve and Robert would form an alliance in oder to lower their taxes. Shameful, indeed...

But more to the point of this board, I'm curious to know how Rand would feel: to what extent is one willing to go in order to lower taxes? My own response is , 'Never to the detriment of the sacrifice of individual liberties, the most important, after speech, is the right to vote.

Eva

Post 44

Friday, January 17, 2014 - 7:38pm

Eva,

I'm not going to beat my head against a stone wall. If you choose not to understand what I'm saying when I advocate that states are a powerful curb on federal government... fine. If you choose to ignore that the original contract (our constitution) was between the states and based upon the states retaining a degree of sovereignty... fine. If you choose to think that only the states will violate individual rights and that the federal government won't... fine. You get all up in arms about my wanting the U.S. Senators to be elected by the state legislators... fine, but don't mistake democracy for protection of individual rights. Should we have popular elections for the Supreme Court Justices? Why not?
-------------------

This indicates ulterior motive by strongly suggesting that, "I'm for such and such (lower taxes), however that may be achieved. If we need a 50- state dictatorship, that's fine, because the means justifies the ends."

You put that in quotes as if they were my words. That's low! That's dishonest. Put your words in someone else's mouth because I won't engage in a debate when that kind of dishonesty is what comes back at me.
-------------------

Eva, you are NOT a libertarian, no matter what you might claim or think. You said this in your post above:

Well, I'm for lowering taxes, too. The sound, acceptable argument is to free up money for investment to create jobs. The federals should referee to see that this extra money indeed goes into investment--not, as it were, to be wasted on stock-market gambling or a larger yacht.

I can NOT conceive a libertarian of any stripe who thinks that we should have some federal agency that forces people to spend some part of their own money in 'acceptable' investments, and not be "wasted on stock-market gambling or a larger yacht." That's pure big brother government telling people what they can and can not spend their money on. That is pure Progessive motivation, where the elites know better what people should spend their money on, and where some proposed social or economic outcome is declared by the elites to be adequate reason to force others to do what they are told.
-------------------

So, you think that Robert and I would form a shameful alliance with "ignorant, bribe-taking, pig-fucking rednecks who get elected from counties which forbid the purchase of alcohol, have no accredited high school, yet legalize the marriage of 13-year old cousins..." I can only conclude that you have strayed from the common courtesy and decency that honest discourse requires. My ethical standards have always been too high to either do what you have accused me of, or to make that kind of unwarranted, unjustified, unproven and slanderous attack on another person.

Having know many, many people whose education is not so lacking that they think the only side that could ever be seen in the argument for states rights is the one that was made by racists, and having known many people from the South who are not racists, and in no way match your crude, stereotyping of the South, and knowing many people from the north who favor recognition of those rights that the constitution and the founding fathers acknowledged belonged to the states, I have to conclude that you are simply choosing to either be ignorant or be wrong and to do so in a rude fashion.
--------------------

Once the air has been cleared of the hysterical Progressive propaganda, you'll see that the only threat to the vote in today's America comes from fraud. How did Al Franken get to be a senator? Fraud. Why do Progressives get in an uproar about any form of identification being required to vote? Because it stops fraud. If you think that the right to vote is crucial (as do I), then ask yourself why Progressives don't care about that one honest vote that is canceled by aa single fraudulent vote? They were the ones who believed that wiping out the votes of honest voters was justified to get another Progressive in the Senate.
---------------------

The only real fear of states rights comes from those who want a powerful federal government even though it means the sacrifice of individual liberty. I have no respect for that position.
----------------------

I suspect that I could tell you how Rand would have seen this issue, but I won't. You should read her non-fiction and make your own judgments. Not having read Rand on individual rights, you don't even know how she defines or derives individual rights. Take it from me, you certainly aren't doing so well firing off in the blind - you look so clueless in a discussion like this.

Post 45

Friday, January 17, 2014 - 10:17pm

Yes, Steve, if you defend states rights by the relationship of forces that existed some 210 years ago, you're saying that today we ought to have the same relationship of forces that existed 210 years ago because...they existed some 210 years ago.

'Care to add another reason?
Or to say that our Constitution was somehow violated?

No, the citation that you're so angry about in no way implicated you as the speaker. Rather, kindly look closely and you'll see that it was written as a hypothetical speaker, a literary vanity.

Yes, if you shared my opinion on the lack of moral and intellectual acumen of state congresspeople, you'd be far more inclined not to give them power that's now in the hands of the people.

Supreme Court Justices should be brought under greater popular scrutiny. Although the election of any judge seems distasteful, it's always been 'balanced against cronysm on the state level. Imagine that!

As for oversight of untaxed income that would ostensibly be used for real investment, let me say that to anticipate a liberal's argument is not to give it agreement. In the normal give-and -take of real politics, liberals have traditionally given tax breaks with the proviso as mentioned. Otherwise, not.

So it's not a matter of belief, ideals, or intellectual purity, but rather, do you want lower taxes, or not? Here's what your opponent will offer you tomorrow, because he/she has put the same offer on the table since FDR.

Of course, no one is a racist for believing in states rights. However, every racist believes in states rights because that's where he/she will get support.

Of course, one who believes in understanding the constitution by standards set 210 years ago isn't a racist by definition, either. But those who are racist want a 210year old understanding of the document because those who wrote it were racist...slave owners.

Regarding Rand, my interest is how she looked upon state power and governance, tutti quanti. Did she see power transfer from fed to state as a move towards more personal freedom?

I would assume that she had far more to say than, mertely,"We shoiuld roll the clock back to the days of the Founding Fathers because they were, after all 'founding fathers'" (not a citation, merely a hypothetical speaker, a literary vanity).

Eva

Post 46

Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 8:38am

Eva,

I had hoped for an apology. Your claim that that quote was just a "hypothetical speaker" holds no water. Who else do you happen to be discussing states rights, lowering taxes, and individual rights with in this thread... surprise, just me. That means, to me, that I was the target and perhaps because you weren't angry enough, you aimed it at me in a slightly indirect way.
----------------

Your posts have shown a mind-set that is very much that of a progressive when it comes to viewing the modern South, and in viewing those who hold state offices... to me, it is almost like a form of discrimination where the actual people's character, ability and intelligence don't matter. They are from the south, and/or they hold state office, so they are, what did you call them? "pig fucking red-necks"? That is really an abandonment of logic just like the racists who see only the skin color and can't get past that to look at the individual, the character or the intelligence.
----------------

You also seem to share the view of the Supreme Court, and the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers that is held by progressives.
----------------

Of course, no one is a racist for believing in states rights. However, every racist believes in states rights because that's where he/she will get support.

The fact that a racist would try to use states' rights to pursue his racism isn't in anyway a valid argument against states' rights. A Neo-Nazi would scream that his freedom of speech allows him to spew out his hatred. He's right, and his turning toward it for support is NOT a reason to throw out any part of the first amendment.

What is the most progressive in your argument is that you have abandoned the concept of a government that is limited to only those powers explicitly granted by the constitution. When the states each met to ratify the constitution, most of them would not except it without a promise of a bill of rights and they wanted it written that all those powers not explicitly granted to the federal government remained in the hands of the states and the individual.

Progressives would see the idea of such a limit on the federal government as totally unacceptable. They would pick up ANY popular cause to craft some kind of Trojan Horse legislation that gains more federal power... and more... and more.
----------------

The primary and key understanding of the constitution that must stay the same from the Founding Fathers to now, and on into the future is that the federal government can have not one iota of power that isn't explicitly granted to it by the constitution. Otherwise it isn't a limited government, it is a government that is unlimited and can, therefore, do whatever a dictator, an elite, or a majority that wants to violate rights decides to do. If there is a need to change the constitution, then the amendment process should be used. Bad amendments can later be repealed, while keeping the concept of a limited government. But to abandon the concept of limited government is the progressive wet-dream.
----------------

When you use phrases like "oversight of untaxed income" and put it forth as the price to be paid for lower taxes, with no mention of the extortionate nature of that, or of the underlying implication that everything we have really belongs to the state anyway who is just letting us use some of it, with conditions, it sounds very, very progressive. I can't think of anyone else that regularly posts on RoR that would have phrased things in that way.

Post 47

Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 10:38am

Steve,

You seem to think that I think that those who share political alliances with racists somehow become racist themselves-- in the act of doing so. This is a flagrant smear on my character; I demand an apology.

Your appraisal of southern politicians seems to have been done from afar. So where do you live, anyway? I, btw, live in Atlanta where, when the conversation gets boring, we make fun of what goes on down at state-cap.

And yes, I supported the Supreme Court decision that denied the feds oversight of education, with respect to funding. Lots of the state-level jackass stuff is caused by agressive fed behavior; until they're out of the picture, reasonable people cannot be elected.

Which gets to my main point: as a Libertatian, you can either take a principled position of opposition, or participate. I choose the later course.

This means understanding the opposition's pov (so-called 'progressive'), and to a certain extent respecting their concerns. Otherwise, you get nowhere.

This suggests that objectivist and libertarian sites should be more than rant-o-ramas. I never was a cheerleader, anyway, but rather a soccer freak.

On a larger scale, this entails seeing the expansion of fed power as a series of decisions which may or not have been necessary at that time, but have, in any case, become disfunctional. This indicates what's need is a peacemeal dismantling.

Talk of corruption from the start--that the fed acted in an un-constitutional manner--is interesting, but altogether useless. In any case, how would you argue this on the grounds of constitutional scholarship? Having inquired of them, my law-school buds are clueless...

Eva

Post 48

Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 12:25pm

Eva,

You seem to think that I think that those who share political alliances with racists somehow become racist themselves

Don't think that, and didn't say that. You put quote marks around things I didn't say, tell me I'm thinking things I'm not, and don't quote what I actually wrote. That's not holding up your end of the conversation - not if you intend to have a fair and honest dialog.
-------

as a Libertatian, you can either take a principled position of opposition, or participate. I choose the later course.

That often means taking an unprincipled position. And to be honest, at this point, I'm not sure you really grasp libertarian principles. I am sure you haven't yet learned Objectivist principles.
-------

This means understanding the opposition's pov (so-called 'progressive'), and to a certain extent respecting their concerns.

Their primary concern is eliminating liberty in most spheres of life through regulation and taxation. I have no respect for that concern.
--------

On a larger scale, this entails seeing the expansion of fed power as a series of decisions which may or not have been necessary at that time...

There most certainly have not been any expansions of federal government exceeding the constitution that were necessary at any time. Nor any expansions that shouldn't be rolled back. Your attitude is, once again, progressive.

Post 49

Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 6:29pm

Steve,

"And to be honest, at this point...."

You seem far more interested in labeling & using daffy-nitions than discussing fact, concept and real-world possibilities

In other words, why should anyone care that, by your standard, they're not a 'true' libertarian, nor understand Rand 'correctly'?

Moreover, quite honestly, yours seems to be a world of catecism and dogma--a genre of kathiliko-marxism stood on its head: what a 'progressive' is is precisely what Steve intends it to mean at the time that he says it....

Your only real talking point is that America should revert back to the state/fed/individual relationship that existed 210 years ago. Otherwise , you're a....'progressive'!

Well, okay, anyone who deals in attainable realites is a...'progressive'!

So is this your only point? Are you saying that non-progressives are talking horses with nothing to say?

Eva

Post 50

Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 8:04pm

Eva,

...why should anyone care that, by your standard, they're not a 'true' libertarian, nor understand Rand 'correctly'?

I didn't say 'true' libertarian, and I didn't say what you were or weren't - I said I don't think you understand libertarian principles. And this web site, while it welcomes people who aren't Objectivists, it makes no bones about being an Objectivist web site - and it is quite rare to have someone here who chooses to argue with the other members while not even having read a single one of Rand's non-fiction works.
-----------

Your only real talking point is that America should revert back to the state/fed/individual relationship that existed 210 years ago. Otherwise , you're a....'progressive'!

Not hardly. Why don't you actually read and think about what I said? Then your replies might not be such nonsense.
-----------

Well, okay, anyone who deals in attainable realites is a...'progressive'!

Why bother making a reply if it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote? What is the point of just making up stuff like this? I've recommended attainable realities many times, but they have to be going in the right direction. A future made up of less liberty isn't going the right way.
-----------

So is this your only point? Are you saying that non-progressives are talking horses with nothing to say?

I have no idea what that means.
-----------

You are clearly very bright and well-read - strikingly so for your years. If you find any value at all in this forum, why don't you take the time to pick just one of Rand's non-fiction books, like "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" (which gives a moral base to economics and politics). It is a very easy and fairly quick read. After that your comments would be on target for this forum and you would be more likely to see where we are coming from.

Post 51

Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 8:27pm

Or read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. Then you won't be an ignorant troll, you can be a knowledgeable troll!

Post 52

Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 9:09pm

Von Mises, for all his other virtues, failed to understand the sad history of 19th century American banking.

As a new arrival who's failed to master English, you don't either. Otherwise, you'd not be so obsessed with this 'troll' thing.

In my university, 'ignorance' means 'failure to have read the material'. Therefore, people who have only read a bit of philsophy--be it Rand, Mises, Keynes or Marx--are ignorant by definition.

No philosophical movement needs semi-literate fools to mis-represent its thought. Rand, indeed argued forcefully, but she was no dogmatist. She would have therefore despised you as pompous fool.

EM

Post 53

Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 9:37pm

Steve,

I'm really not so sure about this 'we': if you want to have an on-line conversation, fine...you seem to be far more intelligent than that Gores, and I do, sincerely enjoy your input.

So let's back up bit.

The fed has gained power over the states since since 1800. Neither of us like the fact.

My reasoning of cause is more institutional. Humans frequently devise ways and organizations of getting things done, only to permit the set-ups to linger far after the reason for having the institution has passed.

So it's time to de-institutionalize. Libertarians are for personal freedom at all possible times; let's examine what institutions are necessary from a practical pov.

You, oth, seem to dwell on the ideal: since it's wrong, let's change it.

So yes, I have been reading Rand, and enjoying it quite a bit. But the manner in which I read anything--much less philosophy!-- is to try to reconcile 'is' with 'ought' as much as possible.

This is to say that although her 'oughts' are impeccably true (as are yours), much of further discussion needs to address the beliefs of others, and how others might be willing to compromise.

I also believe that websites are neither the place to whine, or to demonstrate boffo levels of orthodox loyalty.

To this end, or disagreement is relatively simple. I believe that what America was like in 1800 is somewhat irrelevant. The necessary de-federalization must take a course defined by present needs and realities.

You, on the other hand, feel that 1800 arraingements are very important. Fine. We disagree, and can discuss accordingly.

As to whether your view represents Randian orthodoxy, I'm beginning to have serious reasons to doubt, although it really doesn't matter. In any case, by suggesting that my views are heretical, you're poisioning the well. Let the Gores' of the world do that; they, unlike yourself, can't do any better.

Eva.

Post 54

Sunday, January 19, 2014 - 8:28am

I must have missed some kind of fire storm... Everywhere I look there are deleted posts.

Post 55

Sunday, January 19, 2014 - 8:46am

Steve,

It wasn't a firestorm, but a few mean words were exchanged rather than taking the time to debate each detail. I decided I had enough with it and decided to moderate instead of waste my time debating or getting angry.

I deleted my posts following the virtue of "Don't feed the trolls". I deleted Eva's posts that were dissenting.

There are enough forums in the world for socialists and statists to express their viewpoints and debate with individualists. We even have a dedicated sub forum called "Dissent" just for that purpose.

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 1/22, 5:08pm)

Post 56

Sunday, January 19, 2014 - 11:51am

Dean,

I decided I had enough...[and didn't want to] waste my time debating or getting angry.

That's you. I didn't notice that anyone else had had enough. I don't think your emotional state should be the rule that throws another member into Dissent. Joe owns the site, and if he wants to do that, for whatever reason, he's free to. But the rest of us should walk a somewhat different path to ensure we are not stepping on each other's toes.

I don't want your emotions, or your concern about wasting your time to interrupt a thread or insult another member. Not wasting your time is an easy fix - just ignore the people that bug you.

Again, I'd ask that unless Joe rules otherwise, you restore Eva's normal privileges. If there are others who feel that your actions were abrupt, maybe they could chime in. Or, if there are others that agree with your actions, they could chime in. Otherwise, right now, without anyone else speaking up and without Joe, it just isn't right.

Post 57

Sunday, January 19, 2014 - 2:32pm

I tend to agree with Steve. I found Eva's personality to be very irritating and pompous but I don't think she crossed the line. She obviously hasn't been exposed to enough libertarian/objectivist thought to be able to argue knowledgeably. Maybe this is the only way that she can gain that exposure.
Just giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Sam

Post 58

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 5:37pm