Does libertarianism just shift tyranny from the government to individuals?

[ApplePion]

"As pointed out, the main intention of the second amendment was a final check against tyranny. At the time, the states were wary of a federal dictatorship. In order for the amendment to serve this purpose, the public must have access to weapons that could at least offer some resistance against the government."

This is extraordinarily incorrect, and so typical of the libertarian perspectve.

The Second Amendment mentions the importance of militias. Later in the Constitution, under the powers.duties of the Congress, it gives Congress the pwer to call out the militia to PUT DOWN uprising. Psrt of the intend of the Second Amendment was to STOP people like you.

 

[mheslep]

"As pointed out, the main intention of the second amendment was a final check against tyranny. At the time, the states were wary of a federal dictatorship. In order for the amendment to serve this purpose, the public must have access to weapons that could at least offer some resistance against the government."

This is extraordinarily incorrect, and so typical of the libertarian perspectve.

The Second Amendment mentions the importance of militias. Later in the Constitution, under the powers.duties of the Congress, it gives Congress the pwer to call out the militia to PUT DOWN uprising. Psrt of the intend of the Second Amendment was to STOP people like you.

Yet after the militia clause, the amendment states "The right of the people [not militias]to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first two sentences of Galteeth's post have substantial historical support, in particular the reluctance to create any federal government at all for twelve years after the Declaration.

BTW those sentences are not contradictory with the first two sentences of your last paragraph. Yes the US founders were concerned in detail with preventing tyranny via an insurrectionist, factional public, and from a rogue government. They were even aware of the threat from insurrectionist bombers via the likes of the Guy Fawkes 1605 attempt to bomb the English House of Lords.

 

[ApplePion]

""The right of the people [not militias]to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So? It says the people have that right because militias are so important. And it later says that Congress should call out militias to STOP insurrections.

I can even make it simpler: The Constitution says that Congress should stop insurrections.

You see what you want to see. I am reminded of Ron Paul's fans, as he lost state after state after state, insisting "Dr." Paul had the nomination locked up because it was "the delegates that mattered".

"The first two sentences of Galteeth's post have substantial historical support, in particular the reluctance to create any federal government at all for twelve years after the Declaration. "

The Constitution was created to REMEDY a lack of a federal government, and you cvonstrue the situation as somehow being that the Constitution was for the thing it CHANGED.

 

[mheslep]

... And it later says that Congress should call out militias to STOP insurrections.

I can even make it simpler: The Constitution says that Congress should stop insurrections.

Yes that's correct. However, A1 S8 does not say, "the right to bear arms is granted solely to enable congress to suppress rebellion."

"The first two sentences of Galteeth's post have substantial historical support, in particular the reluctance to create any federal government at all for twelve years after the Declaration. "

The Constitution was created to REMEDY a lack of a federal government,

Clearly, that's a truism.

and you cvonstrue the situation as somehow being that the Constitution was for the thing it CHANGED.

You misconstrue. Again, the federal government was created reluctantly, hence the attempt at the looser Articles of Confederation, hence the Federalist debates, or per Paine:

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Does libertarianism just shift tyranny from the government to individuals?

A simple observation: what makes you equate government with tyranny aren't you forgetting democracy (which exists in a myriad of forms both in real life and proposed with huge variation in practice and theory)? Are you referring to how governments can be the mouthpieces of public tyranny?

I'm not defending libertarianism here (it's quite far from my personal views) but this question seems poorly formed. A better way to address the spirit of your question would be to look at what accountability a libertarian society may have verses one with a greater public sector/government regulation.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the OP was just trying to say, that any government can have tyrany, not intending to imply that they must.

Logically, though, your objection raises a good point: a dictatorship can oppress everyone, while a democracy can oppress at most half, so that on its own is a big improvement.

And, of course, one of the ke functions of the US Constitution is to try to protect that half (or 1% or whatever).

 

[Artus]

Socialism and Corporatism are very strong around the World, Libertarianism won't have a place so easily. Freedom goes hand to hand with responsibility, and the interesting question is, if people is willing to take responsibility for their own actions instead being proctected by their government.

 

[chiro]

Socialism and Corporatism are very strong around the World, Libertarianism won't have a place so easily. Freedom goes hand to hand with responsibility, and the interesting question is, if people is willing to take responsibility for their own actions instead being proctected by their government.

Great comment.

Lots of people think freedom is this magical thing that is without constraint or consequence which is completely irresponsible and delusional to begin with.

 

[Skyler0114]

Great comment.

Lots of people think freedom is this magical thing that is without constraint or consequence which is completely irresponsible and delusional to begin with.

Yea. Freedom is the responsibility to make your own decisions and live with the consequences of it.
EDIT: oops, didn't see the comment above until i clicked post

 

[SixNein]

Not sure if there is an easy answer but if you'll indulge me: What would the government you would prefer to have look like?

I hear the criticism of the Constitution being old/outdated a lot, but the Constitution is primarily an organizational/structural document and so I don't see much in it that has an "age". One obvious exception would be the 2nd Amendment, though.

I think it's the oldest constitution still enforced. If we were going to write a new constitution, we probably would look at more modern attempts. For example, we'd probably expand on human rights. I could think of a Gay rights clause off the top of my head.

Our constitution is an organizational document but quite difficult to amend. Could you imagine an amendment being passed in our political environment?

 

[Galteeth]

I think it's the oldest constitution still enforced. If we were going to write a new constitution, we probably would look at more modern attempts. For example, we'd probably expand on human rights. I could think of a Gay rights clause off the top of my head.

Our constitution is an organizational document but quite difficult to amend. Could you imagine an amendment being passed in our political environment?

It being the oldest could be seen as a positive. Modern isn't necessarily better. Interesting you mention the Gay rights clause. A libertarian would probably put it differently, a freedom of sexuality clause. I have as much right to hook up with a dude as a homosexual does:)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yea. Freedom is the responsibility to make your own decisions and live with the consequences of it.
EDIT: oops, didn't see the comment above until i clicked post

So freedom is being denied medical care because your actions led you to getting hurt? After all if someone does something to mitigate living with the consequences they're taking away your freedom not any definition of freedom I'd ever use. When discussing issues like this I find terms like negative and positive liberty to be more useful.

 

[SixNein]

It being the oldest could be seen as a positive. Modern isn't necessarily better. Interesting you mention the Gay rights clause. A libertarian would probably put it differently, a freedom of sexuality clause. I have as much right to hook up with a dude as a homosexual does:)

Yes and no. Knowledge has progressed over 300 years, but timing is also important. I think we'd be risking an establishment of religion should we make the effort today.

Yes, the clause would be generalized but at the same time prohibiting the exploitation of minors.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, the clause would be generalized but at the same time prohibiting the exploitation of minors.

Prohibiting sexual activity without consent would be better and then having a legally defined age of consent. This way you cover everything from sexual assault to necrophilia.

 

[Skyler0114]

So freedom is being denied medical care because your actions led you to getting hurt? After all if someone does something to mitigate living with the consequences they're taking away your freedom not any definition of freedom I'd ever use. When discussing issues like this I find terms like negative and positive liberty to be more useful.

Of course context and perspective are essential to having freedom. Equal opportunity is a key aspect to being free, but what you do with that opportunity shapes your destiny. More social freedom means more responsibility and being able to handle what comes from your position without help from society. A person living out of society is free from any institution holding him down but has to be self sufficient and be able to survive on his own.
There are points where too much personal freedom (which can be partially provided by society) can lead to less social freedom. Welfare from the state can open avenues that were never possible, but can also form a dependency on the state that inhibits social freedom and your expression of it. I think the real challenge that most people need to ask themselves is how much of both they want and what they are willing to do for it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

More social freedom means more responsibility and being able to handle what comes from your position without help from society.

I reject this definition. I don't see this as desirable (if you want to do it fine but leave others out of it) nor do I think it makes any sense. "Society" is a collaborative entity, in the context of your definition it seems like you mean "freedom" from society rather than within it. When discussing issues of which freedom is an issue such as speech, health, life, clothing, social interaction etc I don't see how this definition would help anyone.

Welfare from the state can open avenues that were never possible, but can also form a dependency on the state that inhibits social freedom and your expression of it.

Welfare removes freedom? So if someone was born with a congenital disease, lost most of their family, couldn't get a job to sustain themselves (etc) you would deny them welfare because it would inhibit their freedom?

Rather than continue down this pointless lane I'm just going to refer you back to my former post. Those are far better terms to use when discussing freedom than this (which seems like a close synonym for "self-sufficiency").

 

[chiro]

You have collective responsibility and personal responsibility: personal is something we can look after but collective is something different.

Ultimately the collective stems from the sum of all personal actions so when everyone does the best to take their own responsibility not only for themselves but how that translates into other things, then this is a way to indirectly show a contribution to collective responsibility.

I think this whole game we are playing is one an experiment to teach us about freedom and especially what the consequences are of not only our personal actions but how all these actions relate to the actions of everyone else: i.e. just a way to teach us about cause and effect and like Sklyer0114 said: the ability to do things and live through their consequences.

With regard to your welfare comment, I think you should use your own insight and see it from the collective set of all actions that are somehow integrated into the complex mechanisms of societal structure that we see today.

We offer welfare if we believe in such a thing (and many of us do) and I think if you ask a lot of people why they would support and not support something, the most important questions to ask include "Would you like the outcome if it happened to you?" (this is probably the best way to judge equity under uncertainty especially when everyone agrees but then again this is hard) and most importantly "Has it happened to you?" or a weak version would be "Have you been around someone that has experienced it?"

Personal responsibility forces the individual to consider the consequences of their actions and social responsibility forces them to consider how their actions have a ripple effect everywhere else.

The thing though is that we all have different experiences and are moulded in different ways so the only real definite way to get even some insight into the experiences with others is through some form of highly concentrated empathy (and I don't mean this BS of comforting someone who's husband died: anyone can do that).

Some might say that the social responsibility is then largely taking the time out to think of what others have gone through so that the personal actions can be considered in the context of these outcomes.

Unfortunately we have a lot of people who just don't know any better and if they are kept in the dark of what the real world is like (both good and bad), their own actions will reflect the absence of this knowledge and likely result in things that others with such experience or knowledge may despise: the best we can do is not to expect them to follow what we say, but just to tell them what is going on so that they can make up their mind and ultimately at the end of the day, they do.

No one is an island though, and in hindsight I think it's a good thing: the reason why a lot of stuff is so screwed up is because people are so ignorant of what is really happening out there in the real world, and as a result things as so distorted as to cause many people to not only make certain decisions but to support collectively others making similar ones.

 

[Skyler0114]

I reject this definition. I don't see this as desirable (if you want to do it fine but leave others out of it) nor do I think it makes any sense. "Society" is a collaborative entity, in the context of your definition it seems like you mean "freedom" from society rather than within it. When discussing issues of which freedom is an issue such as speech, health, life, clothing, social interaction etc I don't see how this definition would help anyone.

Welfare removes freedom? So if someone was born with a congenital disease, lost most of their family, couldn't get a job to sustain themselves (etc) you would deny them welfare because it would inhibit their freedom?

Rather than continue down this pointless lane I'm just going to refer you back to my former post. Those are far better terms to use when discussing freedom than this (which seems like a close synonym for "self-sufficiency").

I never said that welfare removes freedom, that is a fallacy. You took my statement that there exists a subset of people on welfare who lose freedom by becoming so dependent on the state. Instead you are saying I said that being on welfare implies you have less freedom, which is not true. It can provide you with more freedom (fix a broken leg, treat an illness) but it can at the same time make you a slave to the system.
I never said that either is a bad thing or that they are the only forms of freedom, only that freedom has checks and balances within it.

 

[Skyler0114]

You have collective responsibility and personal responsibility: personal is something we can look after but collective is something different.

Ultimately the collective stems from the sum of all personal actions so when everyone does the best to take their own responsibility not only for themselves but how that translates into other things, then this is a way to indirectly show a contribution to collective responsibility.

I think this whole game we are playing is one an experiment to teach us about freedom and especially what the consequences are of not only our personal actions but how all these actions relate to the actions of everyone else: i.e. just a way to teach us about cause and effect and like Sklyer0114 said: the ability to do things and live through their consequences.

With regard to your welfare comment, I think you should use your own insight and see it from the collective set of all actions that are somehow integrated into the complex mechanisms of societal structure that we see today.

We offer welfare if we believe in such a thing (and many of us do) and I think if you ask a lot of people why they would support and not support something, the most important questions to ask include "Would you like the outcome if it happened to you?" (this is probably the best way to judge equity under uncertainty especially when everyone agrees but then again this is hard) and most importantly "Has it happened to you?" or a weak version would be "Have you been around someone that has experienced it?"

Personal responsibility forces the individual to consider the consequences of their actions and social responsibility forces them to consider how their actions have a ripple effect everywhere else.

The thing though is that we all have different experiences and are moulded in different ways so the only real definite way to get even some insight into the experiences with others is through some form of highly concentrated empathy (and I don't mean this BS of comforting someone who's husband died: anyone can do that).

Some might say that the social responsibility is then largely taking the time out to think of what others have gone through so that the personal actions can be considered in the context of these outcomes.

Unfortunately we have a lot of people who just don't know any better and if they are kept in the dark of what the real world is like (both good and bad), their own actions will reflect the absence of this knowledge and likely result in things that others with such experience or knowledge may despise: the best we can do is not to expect them to follow what we say, but just to tell them what is going on so that they can make up their mind and ultimately at the end of the day, they do.

No one is an island though, and in hindsight I think it's a good thing: the reason why a lot of stuff is so screwed up is because people are so ignorant of what is really happening out there in the real world, and as a result things as so distorted as to cause many people to not only make certain decisions but to support collectively others making similar ones.

Well thought out analysis.
It's nice to see that someone took the time to try and see what I was saying. As am I glad someone was able to bring empathy into this discussion. It is such a crucial part of the human experience, I can't even begin to describe it. I know some of my comments make it sound as though I'm saying everyone should really be on their own, but that's completely not what I mean.

I believe that given an opportunity, a person can truly do great things, but we need the freedom to innovate society on our own terms. Society should be what each individual wants to make out of it, and institutionalizing our society and forcing people into the structure should not be desirable in a truly free society. Trying to take another's freedom should not be tolerated, unless the actions of that person's freedom will deprive others of their freedom. We should be free to decide what we define our society as.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I never said that welfare removes freedom, that is a fallacy. You took my statement that there exists a subset of people on welfare who lose freedom by becoming so dependent on the state. Instead you are saying I said that being on welfare implies you have less freedom, which is not true. It can provide you with more freedom (fix a broken leg, treat an illness) but it can at the same time make you a slave to the system.
I never said that either is a bad thing or that they are the only forms of freedom, only that freedom has checks and balances within it.

This doesn't seem to match up with what you've said previously but ok. I still don't agree that welfare ever removes your freedom. If there is a reason that you can't leave welfare then whatever that factor is is what is removing your freedom.

Trying to take another's freedom should not be tolerated, unless the actions of that person's freedom will deprive others of their freedom. We should be free to decide what we define our society as.

In my experience very few people disagree with this but what they define as depriving of freedom and how they rate said deprivation can be very different. Person A may argue that the fact that mimimum wage deprives them of their freedom to offer what they want for an employee makes it wrong, however person B may argue that mimimum wage results in greater freedom for the most amount of people by reducing the chance of economic oppression.

 

[russ_watters]

RE: welfare removing freedom: Ryan, do you consider taxes and elimination of choice to be a reduction of freedom? To me it would appear that social programs reduce negative liberty through taxes and loss of choice, while increasing positive liberty. And, of course, the people having negative freedom reduced and those having positive freedom increased are two different groups. And that last part doesn't play well with what you said about deprivation of freedom. You gave an example that supports your view, but it wasn't relevant to the topic at hand. Minimum wage laws protect negative liberty, but positive liberty for one usually comes at the expense of negative liberty for another...unless, of course, we abandon some traditional forms of liberty.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

RE: welfare removing freedom: Ryan, do you consider taxes and elimination of choice to be a reduction of freedom? To me it would appear that social programs reduce negative liberty through taxes and loss of choice, while increasing positive liberty. And, of course, the people having negative freedom reduced and those having positive freedom increased are two different groups. And that last part doesn't play well with what you said about deprivation of freedom. You gave an example that supports your view, but it wasn't relevant to the topic at hand. Minimum wage laws protect negative liberty, but positive liberty for one usually comes at the expense of negative liberty for another...unless, of course, we abandon some traditional forms of liberty.

We're mostly in agreement here. Increases in some forms of freedom can come at the expense of others. Whether or not one believes that is justified depends first on ones morals and second on the evidence that points to whether or not those actions help achieve moral goals.

 

[russ_watters]

Fair enough. Extending that, I'd say that while Western political history/theory/development from Hobbes to about 1900 focused almost exclusively on protection of negative liberty, the past 100 years has seen provision of positive liberty go from virtually nonexistent to elevation above negative liberty in many cases. Your opinion?

 

[russ_watters]

Extending further, while I think few people would disagree that providing needs to the truly needy serves a moral good, where we would disagree is:
1. What is true need?
2. Should gov't provide beyond true need?
3. How much negative liberty should be sacrificed to achieve these?

 

[Oltz]

Extending further, while I think few people would disagree that providing needs to the truly needy serves a moral good, where we would disagree is:
1. What is true need?
2. Should gov't provide beyond true need?
3. How much negative liberty should be sacrificed to achieve these?

1. How can we even determine this when a majority still define "poverty" as a percent of average income regardless of quality of life? The "poor" now live better then the majority did 80 years ago. Being poor and being in poverty are not the same.

2. No.

3. As little as possible.

The key moment in history for that philosophical change in our governments role was the passage of the 16th amendment in 1913 changing how the federal government receives funds. Prior to that they needed to bill each state based on its census population and the states raised the funds by what ever means each state legislature had agreed upon.

Once state taxes and federal taxes were divorced the federal government was able to give itself more money any time it needed it by simply adding a new tax or fee. Thus starting the tax and spend cycle. Paving the way for the predicted demise of democracy in the famous quotes about candidates buying votes with other peoples money and the majority realizing they can vote themselves money.

By the way some states funded through taxes others with tolls and fees for licensing (barber, hunting, liquor) the key being that the constitution had given the federal government strict limits on its ability to directly raise funds as a check against governments accumulation of power (tyranny)

The 17th Amendment completed the task by making state senators elected by popular votes instead of chosen by state legislature. This made the senate more susceptible to the innate desire to favor certain constituencies and certain parts of their state that had larger populations and more easily influenced by the public instead of answering to a more equally distributed legislature and governor who had the express task of watching over the shoulders of the senators.

The write up on wiki for the 17th is actually pretty good.

As well as a decline in the influence of the states, Ure also argues that the Seventeenth Amendment led to the rise of special interest groups to fill the void; with citizens replacing state legislators as the Senate's electorate, with citizens being less able to monitor the actions of their Senators, the Senate became more susceptible to pressure from interest groups, who in turn were more influential due to the centralization of power in the federal government; an interest group no longer needed to lobby many state legislatures, and could instead focus its efforts on the federal government.

 

[mheslep]

I find idea that "welfare" never "removes freedom" frustrating. The decades of experience with welfare, followed later by reform, grant us a good data set to show the effects of welfare dependency and all that goes with it: http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/437DD129D95AFA07970E510BB332B650.jpg, increased http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/~/media/Images/Reports/2001/The%20Effects%20of%20Welfare%20Reform/effectswelfarereformchart3.ashx?w=400&h=515&as=1. To my mind these afflictions are also loss of freedom, brought about by state action.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Fair enough. Extending that, I'd say that while Western political history/theory/development from Hobbes to about 1900 focused almost exclusively on protection of negative liberty, the past 100 years has seen provision of positive liberty go from virtually nonexistent to elevation above negative liberty in many cases. Your opinion?

I'm not sure I know enough about the history of the various countries to comment.

Extending further, while I think few people would disagree that providing needs to the truly needy serves a moral good, where we would disagree is:
1. What is true need?

That's a very hard question. To be honest I'd rather not use the term need at all because it's largely arbitrary; some would say that need is purely the physical needs of food, safety, healthcare etc but others (me amongst them) would go on to include economic and social needs. Human beings have more needs to live fulfilling lives than is usually thought. I'd say a need is something that is necessary to allow you to live to fulfilled, prosperous and healthy life. It's easier to work out on a case by case basis but to be honest I think we lack a suitable metric by which to measure it by.

2. Should gov't provide beyond true need?

In a democratic setting in theory a government is what the majority of people taking part want it to be (that includes majority support for legislation to avoid majority rule). In terms of providing I'd like to replace that with the term "take steps to ensure/enhance". Going back to the idea of a metric if we did have a technique that we use to measure a range of things from underemployment rates to happiness levels I'd say a governments role is to ensure ever higher scores on that metric.

3. How much negative liberty should be sacrificed to achieve these?

It's largely incomparable without a good metric and some data to look at. If we just took a simple metric like GDP per capita then we might as a question a long the lines of "would GDP per capita increase/decrease if we took X% from these people and used it to educate these people?" Does that make sense?

 

[Skyler0114]

Quite frankly, as a person living in the US I think our system so backwards. Welfare can go awry and when it does it can be debilitating to the individuals involved. Apparently student loans for a masters degree can count as benefits that interfere with welfare. Here is an example of what I mean:
http://familyfraud.com/i-need-legal-advice-i-have-been-accused-of-welfare-fraud-because-of-college-loans.htm
Personally I think that student loans should not be considered welfare in any sense of the word. It's a loan.

Our health care system is completely backwards, with the majority of medicine being focused on treating symptoms, not the disease itself or the sources of disease. Instead of producing healthy citizens it's only there to treat us once we get sick. Instead institutions that promote poor health are either grandfathered into our society or are integrated into our society.

Our agricultural backbone is buckling from the effects of genetically modified food, which ironically ties back into topics. I honestly don't see how one can claim that food that enables higher concentrations of pesticides within food, or provides the plant the ability to produce pesticide, should not be subject to long term studies before being deployed into the agricultural infrastructure of our country. If there is even a few studies that indicate a new product is dangerous to consumers, why should it be allowed into the market? How does being forced to buy seeds every crop cycle due to the plants being sterile decrease costs to farmers?

Our environmental policies are very weak. Corporations causing terrible environmental damage, such as hydraulic fracturing go on with little issue even when they refuse to acknowledge the existence of dangerous chemicals in their "fracking fluid" or the fact it gets absorbed into farmers groundwater. Those times that the government steps in the companies are given a slap on the wrist. Ranchers with animals dying due to contaminated groundwater are provided with water as the frackers continue to frack up the local ecosystem.

If anyone wants to nitpick with the last 3 points just know that this isn't uneducated blabber, and that I've spent months looking at evidence in those areas (and a lot more). You will kind of open up a flood gate if you decide to debate on those, and I really would rather not think about such sad things. But, I digress. The "safety net" that the US government is allegedly producing has so much wrong with it that its only going to get worse if we continue to expand it without doing ALOT of house cleaning first.

 

[Oltz]

Quite frankly, as a person living in the US I think our system so backwards. Welfare can go awry and when it does it can be debilitating to the individuals involved. Apparently student loans for a masters degree can count as benefits that interfere with welfare. Here is an example of what I mean:
http://familyfraud.com/i-need-legal-advice-i-have-been-accused-of-welfare-fraud-because-of-college-loans.htm
Personally I think that student loans should not be considered welfare in any sense of the word. It's a loan.

Our health care system is completely backwards, with the majority of medicine being focused on treating symptoms, not the disease itself or the sources of disease. Instead of producing healthy citizens it's only there to treat us once we get sick. Instead institutions that promote poor health are either grandfathered into our society or are integrated into our society.

Our agricultural backbone is buckling from the effects of genetically modified food, which ironically ties back into topics. I honestly don't see how one can claim that food that enables higher concentrations of pesticides within food, or provides the plant the ability to produce pesticide, should not be subject to long term studies before being deployed into the agricultural infrastructure of our country. If there is even a few studies that indicate a new product is dangerous to consumers, why should it be allowed into the market? How does being forced to buy seeds every crop cycle due to the plants being sterile decrease costs to farmers?

Our environmental policies are very weak. Corporations causing terrible environmental damage, such as hydraulic fracturing go on with little issue even when they refuse to acknowledge the existence of dangerous chemicals in their "fracking fluid" or the fact it gets absorbed into farmers groundwater. Those times that the government steps in the companies are given a slap on the wrist. Ranchers with animals dying due to contaminated groundwater are provided with water as the frackers continue to frack up the local ecosystem.

If anyone wants to nitpick with the last 3 points just know that this isn't uneducated blabber, and that I've spent months looking at evidence in those areas (and a lot more). You will kind of open up a flood gate if you decide to debate on those, and I really would rather not think about such sad things. But, I digress. The "safety net" that the US government is allegedly producing has so much wrong with it that its only going to get worse if we continue to expand it without doing ALOT of house cleaning first.

First I would love to see sources for any of this.

Second the reason our medical care focuses on symptoms is that is what consumers are willing to pay for to get remedy the market pushed care in that direction. Think about it many people I know will spend 20 dollars a month treating a symptom instead of thousands up front for a cure, but there is another reason I personally need major back surgery but I would not be able to even start rehab for a year and then would need months of rehab before I could go back to work. I can not afford to be off work that long can you ? so I treat the symptoms as best I can.

Third every plant an animal we currently produce can be considered GMO due to selective breading even "wild rice" is not wild rice. With out GMO crops modern machinery and irrigation the world would starve. Per acre pesticide use is down in the US from pest resistant crops AFAIK.

Fourth Show me one case where "livestock was killed due to groundwater contamination" the only cases I know of where livestock was harmed were actually surface spills. Which if you have ever been in industry you know can not be completely avoided only mitigated as best as possible. I also have never seen a single test showing frac chemicals in ground water. There are plenty of cases of Methane in water but that obviously is not a frac chemical. Lastly http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used the chemicals are easily available at several registries like the one linked to help with confusion you look at a list like that and any given job will select 4 or 5 chemicals off of that list and they are added to water at ratios in the 1 to 2 gallons per thousand gallons of water. They are then pumped a mile underground where they mix with millions of gallons of brine (salt) water that are already present at that depth making the chemicals highly dilute and frankly very far from any potable water. Failed casing and cement jobs can and hve casued issues but again these are not "fracking" problems they are drilling and well integrity problems.

My degree is environmental geology and I work for a natural gas producer in PA. I am not sure what any of these points has to do with the election but I am curious. I will have any conversation you like in PM.

 

[Galteeth]

Extending further, while I think few people would disagree that providing needs to the truly needy serves a moral good, where we would disagree is:
1. What is true need?
2. Should gov't provide beyond true need?
3. How much negative liberty should be sacrificed to achieve these?

Yes, this is a point a lot of people miss in the debate. "Welfare" and collective interest do not necessarily have to come from government. I think in many ways, pawning off social problems on the government makes people less inclined to the collective interest, as in "that's the government's problem, not mine." I think it's a pretty dim view of humanity that says no one would ever help anyone else unless they're forced to do so at gunpoint.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, this is a point a lot of people miss in the debate. "Welfare" and collective interest do not necessarily have to come from government. I think in many ways, pawning off social problems on the government makes people less inclined to the collective interest, as in "that's the government's problem, not mine." I think it's a pretty dim view of humanity that says no one would ever help anyone else unless they're forced to do so at gunpoint.

I think that's a mischaracterisation of taxes and how people perceive but regardless charities do not raise as much money as governments in similar fields and I don't see that they would necessarily if governments weren't responsible for those fields. Take healthcare for example in countries with no universal healthcare schemes. Are there charities that attract enough money to provide for those who can't pay?

 

[jduster]

The answer is yes.

 

[Angry Citizen]

As pointed out, the main intention of the second amendment was a final check against tyranny. At the time, the states were wary of a federal dictatorship. In order for the amendment to serve this purpose, the public must have access to weapons that could at least offer some resistance against the government.

I believe that this has become a naive view, given that the killing capacity of firearms has improved markedly since the late 18th century, and given that the military could stomp the populace of America with relative ease despite the prevalence of high-powered munitions in the public domain.

Furthermore, I believe the Second Amendment was clearly intended to support the use of well-regulated militias, not Joe Six-Pack having a Howitzer in his backyard. We have well-regulated militias - they're known as the National Guard. Does anyone seriously believe the Texas National Guard will ever fire a shot in anger at the United States Army, even if the United States becomes a tyranny?

 

[Angry Citizen]

The answer is yes.

Pre-Government Welfare: Gilded Age.

Post-Government Welfare: Highest average standard of living in the entirety of history.

History speaks for itself on this position.

 

[mheslep]

Pre-Government Welfare: Gilded Age.

Post-Government Welfare: Highest average standard of living in the entirety of history.

History speaks for itself on this position.

After the fact, therefore because of the fact fallacy.