• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Founding Fathers Were Libertarians

Do You Believe Our Founding Fathers Were Libertarians

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 34.1%
  • No

    Votes: 18 43.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 22.0%

  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
no, you need to DEFINE the term "murder" before you can legislate penalties for certain actions.

Not all killing is murder.

The only legitimate use of force is in either punitive or preemptive self defense, anything else is murder. But of course when the state engages in murder it's perfectly legitimate, because the state said it was legitimate.
 
Then please do explain to me how you can have individual sovereignty AND a statist society. The two are antithetical concepts.

Not if all State power and sovereignty is born from the People. In such a case we lend our individual sovereignty to the government to allow it to operate in means which best support our freedom and liberty. And the government may continue to operate until we pull our sovereignty from it; in which case a new government can be created.
 
Not if all State power and sovereignty is born from the People. In such a case we lend our individual sovereignty to the government to allow it to operate in means which best support our freedom and liberty. And the government may continue to operate until we pull our sovereignty from it; in which case a new government can be created.

A social contract can not be entered into voluntarily and is thus a violation of the right of self ownership. Any contract not entered into voluntarily is null and void. By having a state you are naturally granting the state the sole legitimate use of force and endowing in it the powers of the sovereign, there is no way to have individual sovereignty under state sovereignty. What you are asserting is akin to charging the wolf with protecting the sheep and expecting the wolf to listen when the sheep complain about getting eaten.

"We must ask, not whether an anarcho-capitalist society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns (safety is not an available option), but whether it would be safer than our society is from a comparable seizure of power by the men with the guns. I think the answer is yes. In our society, the men who must engineer such a coup are politicians, military officers, and policemen, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe that they have a right to push other men around - that is their job. They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply'." -- David Friedman
 
Last edited:
Not all slaves were black,and not all slave owners were white. Check your history!
 
There are many schools of anarchist thought, there are collective anarchists and there are individualist anarchists.

If there are self-proclaimed "anarchists" out there who are advocating ANY form of formal government, they're just idiots, is all.

There are a LOT of anarcho-morons running around.

Um why do you need the state to own property and buy and sell said property?

Because there are these people out in the real world that I like to call "theives", who will come along and rob people. And if there is no government to assume the voluntarily surrendered power of the people to enforce law, there's only Anarchy and Chaos, and Captain Anarchy NEVER marches, he rides his horse named Chaos, everywhere he goes.
 
There were income taxes long before the ratification of the 16th amendment.

And the courts consistently ruled the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT could not tax income.

Duh.

Already been said.


And who endowed them with that power? No one alive today. The social contract created by the Founders was not entered into you or myself voluntarily and is thus null and void.

What social contract? I don't recall signing any documents. But if you don't like the Constitution, there's nothing stopping you from getting outside it's jurisdiction.

And what gives a gang of man the to forcefully steal from the individual? What you call tariffs on the governmental level is nothing more than racketeering.

No, it's called "border control".

Theft is theft.

Socialism is theft.

Collectivism is theft.

Capitalism is ownership of private property.

Glad we managed to make that all clear now.

And what the hell is the difference between the voluntary contractual agreement between two citizens of the same country and two citizens of different countries?

Armies and Navies.

Why does one imply the legitimization of theft by a gang of men and the other does not?

The will of the people.

The rule of law.

The essential stabilities and freedoms necessary for civilization, not anarchy.

Why are they essential?

Because that's how human nature works in the real world. You know, the place where anarchist fantasies can't happen the way the anarchist like to pretend they do.

What gave them that right? I never entered into any contractual agreement with any state or collective granting them control over the fruits of my labor.

Your voluntary presence in the United States itself obligates you a minimalist behavorial set that contributes to the upkeep of the country, as defined by the Constitution itself. So you get to pay for the military. Nothing unconstitutional there. You get to pay for the courts and the law enforcement. You get to pay for the limited government the Constitution defines.

That's you obligation as a citizen or legal resident of this nation.

Which isn't to say that there's not a container shipload of utter socialist BULL that you're being forced to pay because the Constitution is being raped.

But if you want to live in a country, you have to do you part to support the country. Don't like it here? Move to Somalia. Don a burqa.

I as a human being am entitled to the inalienable right of self ownership which means I owe no good or service to ANYBODY!!!

Not true. As a community of citizens you're at least obligated to pay for the defense and operation of that community. People aren't woodpeckers, that live alone and fly from tree to tree to tree looking for bugs to eat. People evolved as social animals with social cooperativeness an essential behavioral trait. People who don't want to pay their own way don't travel far on the backs of others.

It is both. There are both minarchists and anarchists within the Libertarian party, the minarchists have given up on principle for the sake of elective pragmatism.

There may be anarchists in the LP, but that just means they're either more stupid than your typical anarchist, or liars, though this does not mean they can't be both.

The state and individual sovereignty are mutually exclusive concepts.

Wrong.

There's limits on both state and individual sovereignity in non-overlapping fields. The state has the authority and the power to declare a person a criminal for violating another person's sovereignity. A person does not have this power or authority.

The sovereignity of the State and the sovereignity of the Individual are Complementary concepts.

You called me a fool.

I never said one word of condemnation to you personally.
 
The only legitimate use of force is in either punitive or preemptive self defense, anything else is murder. But of course when the state engages in murder it's perfectly legitimate, because the state said it was legitimate.

So when a doctor commits an abortion under MessiahCare, it won't be murder, even if the same doctor had performed the same murderous procedure before the implementation of MessiahCare?
 
Because there are these people out in the real world that I like to call "theives", who will come along and rob people. And if there is no government to assume the voluntarily surrendered power of the people to enforce law, there's only Anarchy and Chaos, and Captain Anarchy NEVER marches, he rides his horse named Chaos, everywhere he goes.

lol you don't need the state to have security, private security firms would fill the void left by the state. Furthermore; one would retain the right to collective and individual self defense.
 
So when a doctor commits an abortion under MessiahCare, it won't be murder, even if the same doctor had performed the same murderous procedure before the implementation of MessiahCare?

Abortion isn't murder if the fetus is not viable outside of the womb; furthermore, once the fetus is viable outside of the womb the woman has the right to evict unwanted trespassers as she has the right to self ownership.
 
lol you don't need the state to have security, private security firms would fill the void left by the state.

Yes, mercenary armies are ALWAYS soooo reliable and dedicated, and they're especially concerned with protecting the lives and property of the poorest citizens, the guys who, according to you, aren't required to pay the wages of your private security force.

This begs the question if you've ever done more than read the various crackpot anarchistic butterfly theories floating about on the internet or if, worse, you've actually spent time thinking on what you've read and come to the conclusions you're posting.

Furthermore; one would retain the right to collective and individual self defense.

Last I checked, the society established by the Constitution ensures the People's right to indivdual and collective defense. It's called the "Second Amendment".
 
Yes, mercenary armies are ALWAYS soooo reliable and dedicated, and they're especially concerned with protecting the lives and property of the poorest citizens, the guys who, according to you, aren't required to pay the wages of your private security force.

This begs the question if you've ever done more than read the various crackpot anarchistic butterfly theories floating about on the internet or if, worse, you've actually spent time thinking on what you've read and come to the conclusions you're posting.



Last I checked, the society established by the Constitution ensures the People's right to indivdual and collective defense. It's called the "Second Amendment".

"Collective defense"? That sounds commie to me.:roll:
 
There are many problems or concerns here.

The incredibly simple, yet important fallacy committed frequently without much consideration is that one is able to take a large group of people and collectively gather their political and intellectual orientations into one particular mindset. A further error is taking that particular mindset and transporting it into a largely unique time of which they have no understanding. Lastly, in an appeal to the past, certain individuals are wishing that because "The Founders" were "libertarians" that this removes most if not all debate regarding the merits of their political philosophy for our times, and further makes judgement upon the merits of other political philosophies that exist in our time.

Political and intellectual history is not so easily mastered, and furthermore, it is in great error to forget the diverse minds of these individuals who found themselves or deliberately sought to be seen as some sort of "Founding Generation." Their disputes are the goldmines to understanding how they viewed themselves, and how we may view each of them.
 
Last edited:
Do You Believe Our Founding Fathers Were Libertarians

The only answer is no for many reasons
first off SOME did share some libertarian view, along with republican and democratic but some also did not. Also even more importantly since the found father did NOT agree on many things theres no way you can group them together, this alone make the answer no
 
Back
Top Bottom