tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post116173452916399113..comments2023-10-30T03:35:39.232-05:00Comments on American Federalist Blog: Expanding upon the concept of balanceMichael Tamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16861899520031696061noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1163181527153146492006-11-10T11:58:00.000-06:002006-11-10T11:58:00.000-06:00"...picturing Miss Perky Couric using her grown-up..."...picturing Miss Perky Couric using her grown-up, tough question, hard hitting interviewing skills!"<BR/><BR/>Well, they come and go, y'know - her "hard-hitting interview skills," that is. ;)Terry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1163103982044243482006-11-09T14:26:00.000-06:002006-11-09T14:26:00.000-06:00ROTFLMAO picturing Miss Perky Couric using her gro...ROTFLMAO picturing Miss Perky Couric using her grown-up, tough question, hard hitting interviewing skills!Sebosmilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904932110148557554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1162601077772471592006-11-03T18:44:00.000-06:002006-11-03T18:44:00.000-06:00LOL...Katie *bewildered look on her face* to her s...LOL...<BR/><BR/>Katie *bewildered look on her face* to her second guest, Al Sharpton: "So, Mr. Sharpton, how do you respond to the Governor's pretex...ummm, assertions?"<BR/><BR/>Sharpton: "I think it's a dangerous precedent to set, allowing States to exercise their Constitutional authority to protect their citizens against abuses from the national government. If you allow one State to do it in this case, next thing ya know you'll have ten, twenty, thirty States bucking the authority of the federal government on fundamental rights like the right to universal health-care, a woman's right to choose, and the right to charge your fellow citizens with your retirement funding."<BR/><BR/>Katie: "Good points all, Reverend Sharpton! Governor, in the words of my daughter, "who made you boss over us???""<BR/><BR/>Yes, I've heard of the Free State Project, and I think it's a pretty neat idea. But glad you mentioned it.Terry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1162569737275802192006-11-03T10:02:00.000-06:002006-11-03T10:02:00.000-06:00I didn't take it in an unflattering manner. Not a...I didn't take it in an unflattering manner. Not at all. <BR/><BR/>Are you familiar with the Free State Project? If you have, then skip this brief description...<BR/><BR/>Twenty thousand people move to New Hampshire and involve themselves in local politics with the long term goal of controlling all state offices. New Hampshire was chosen for a variety of reasons having to do with low taxes, minimal governmental regulations, etc. For anyone willing to commit to doing so, Free Staters provide all kinds of support, from help finding a job and home to which school districts are the best-performing to you name it.<BR/><BR/>I like the idea, even though I think they tend to be a little too hippy-dippy. Imagine the political machinery of an entire state speaking with one voice! <BR/><BR/>Start with a state that's already very liberty-friendly, and use it to gain a nationwide audience. Imagine a governor holding a press conference and saying "Nope, we ain't gonna enforce that law here. Uncle Sam has no constitutional authority to pass such a law." Think that would spark a national debate? Imagine that governor saying "Ms. Couric, the Constitution is written in plain English, and only a Harvard law professor would have trouble understanding it." <BR/><BR/>I'd love it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1162440745838960112006-11-01T22:12:00.000-06:002006-11-01T22:12:00.000-06:00You mean "in what manner are we Libertarians the f...You mean "in what manner are we Libertarians the faithful opposition?" Heavy on the "faithful!"<BR/><BR/>Anyway...<BR/><BR/>this is what the term means to me: that Libertarians are generally with us, and faithful to the same fundamental causes we are. Where they/you oppose us is in the methodology, or the approach we believe to be the best to securing liberty, or the idea that Man is superior to the State, which is to be fashioned for his use. <BR/><BR/>One example would be our differences with regard to limiting government. Another would be in the methodology of quoting the founders, not out of a particular context, but out of context of their overall view of government which was...balanced.<BR/><BR/>Besides that, you Libertarians - Faithful opposition that you are - tend to force us to refine our arguments in favor of liberty to be more precise. And from a balanced view of the subject, that's not a bad thing.<BR/><BR/>We have many opponents, but few "faithful" opponents. So like I said, the term itself is not unflattering when you understand the meaning.Terry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1162391875424772812006-11-01T08:37:00.000-06:002006-11-01T08:37:00.000-06:00In what manner are we Libertarians the opposition?...In what manner are we Libertarians the opposition?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1162273012382420762006-10-30T23:36:00.000-06:002006-10-30T23:36:00.000-06:00Hamilton,You know that when you start making a dis...Hamilton,<BR/><BR/>You know that when you start making a distinction between "external government," and "internal self-government," you're pulling at my heart-strings, man! Don't do that! ;)<BR/><BR/>Hargis, <BR/><BR/>The term I use privately (now publicly) for Libertarians is this: "The Faithful Opposition." <BR/><BR/>I didn't come up with that on my own. I borrowed it from someone who used it in a different application altogether. But the first time I read it, along with the explanation for it, it seemed to me to be a pretty fair descriptive of the differences between Libertarians and someone like myself.<BR/><BR/>I'm happy to share the original context with you if you so desire, ahem, privately.Terry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1162261133079383482006-10-30T20:18:00.000-06:002006-10-30T20:18:00.000-06:00Mr. Hargis,I too believe in the maximum amount of ...Mr. Hargis,<BR/><BR/>I too believe in the maximum amount of Liberty with the least amount of "government" necessary (I quoted that because we're obviously in agreement that even in the theoretical absence of external government, there is an enormous degree of government - that of the self). This clearly doesn't make me a Libertarian, either.<BR/><BR/>Here's another statement I agree with, that: "...government, no matter the form, always tends to consolidate and expand its power, and does so at the expense of the individual whose rights it was supposed to protect."<BR/><BR/>If you fear a large central government that may become arbitrary with the rights we hold dear; if you fear a large central government that intrudes into our lives in the domestic sphere; or if you fear abuses from your local/State government, isn't the solution to checking the advances of external government - in any sphere - the concept of proper balance?<BR/><BR/>Our Founders envisioned and developed a system whereby the jealousies of each sphere would prevent the other from assuming too much power.<BR/><BR/>As a means to achieving limited *external* government, isn't the strategy of balance superior to any other? <BR/><BR/>-AHMichael Tamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16861899520031696061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1162127648106832082006-10-29T07:14:00.000-06:002006-10-29T07:14:00.000-06:00"We libertarians believe in having the maximum amo..."We libertarians believe in having the maximum amount of liberty possible along with the least amount of government necessary."<BR/><BR/>Mr. Hargis, thanks for the comments! I welcome the opportunity to defend the ideas in this post. Now, if you'll give me about three weeks, I can probably come up with something. LOL<BR/><BR/>Seriously though, I'll have to get back to you on your point(s) individually or this could get unmanageable real quick. <BR/><BR/>There is a term that I privately use for Libertarians in general but (and this is really funny, or sad) I can't seem to think of it at the moment. Anyway, I'll get back to you on that too, when I do think of it. And rest assured, it's not unflattering in the least.<BR/><BR/>As for now, I'd like to begin by addressing your opening sentence...<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that this is a quality not necessarily unique to Libertarians. In fact, this could be said of virtually any American who believes in "limited government," Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Federalist, etc., could it not?<BR/><BR/>In essence, what I'm getting at is that such a refrain, or a defense of one's principles in general terms like that, does not touch on the distinctives of Libertarianism which set it apart from other philosophies of democratic government.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, I believe in the maximum amount of liberty with the least amount of government necessary. But I do not consider myself a Libertarian, obviously, though I do have a few libertarian stripes admittedly. ;)Terry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1162038693260665542006-10-28T07:31:00.000-05:002006-10-28T07:31:00.000-05:00We libertarians believe in having the maximum amou...We libertarians believe in having the maximum amount of liberty possible along with the least amount of government necessary. That applies at all levels.<BR/><BR/>There are legitimate reasons for the existence of a government, of course. Indeed, this is why man comes together and forms societies in the first place. In the theoretical "state of nature" man would have trouble defending his rights against those who have no respect for them. Governments are instituted among men primarily to defend those rights. Collective self defense, you might say. <BR/><BR/>The reason we do not differentiate between forms of government in pointing out its evils is because government, no matter the form, always tends to consolidate and expand its power, and does so at the expense of the individual whose rights it was supposed to protect. It started happening in this country before the ink on the Constitution was dry.<BR/><BR/>When you say that government has no capacity to cause good or evil, I think you are wrong. I understand your point, but I think you are drawing a distinction with very little, if any, difference. The people who make up government ARE government. It's a human institution, not a thing completely separate from the people who comprise it. <BR/><BR/>Thomas Jefferson - "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically numerated."<BR/><BR/>James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said, in a January 1794 speech in the House of Representatives, "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." <BR/><BR/>"Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the<BR/>limited Government established by the people of America." --James Madison<BR/><BR/>Do these quotes not speak to the fact that the Founding Fathers were mostly concerned with preserving liberty by placing hard and fast limits on the federal government? Limits that have largely been ignored, in the fashion of all governments always.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1161956154128430582006-10-27T08:35:00.000-05:002006-10-27T08:35:00.000-05:00Careful there, Hamilton, you are starting to sound...Careful there, Hamilton, you are starting to sound ... monarchist. It also sounds like you approve of the federal interventions of that tyrranical dictator Lincoln. By the way, he could not have been a dictator, all his facial hair was below the mouth. Most dictators have it above.<BR/><BR/>That reminds me, I need to shave...Edmund Schraghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01795196250651958006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1161952206104317112006-10-27T07:30:00.000-05:002006-10-27T07:30:00.000-05:00I would say: perfect sense!-AHI would say: perfect sense!<BR/><BR/>-AHMichael Tamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16861899520031696061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1161950406116858362006-10-27T07:00:00.000-05:002006-10-27T07:00:00.000-05:00"Should a state attempt to infringe upon those rig..."Should a state attempt to infringe upon those rights that are given to us by our Creator and cannot be transferred to any other class of persons, the federal is within its authority to take whatever measures necessary to protect Her citizens' inalienable rights."<BR/><BR/>Speaking of astute observations!<BR/><BR/>I might merely make application of yours, Mr. Hamilton, as my mind is naturally led to apply the principle. Which is to say that the idea in the inverse (where the federal becomes violator of inalienable rights) is as true as is your rendition...the purpose of "government" being to preserve liberty. <BR/><BR/>I would further say that the inhabitants of the United States, not just the legal citizens, are entitled to the protection of their inalienable rights, whether against violations thereof from the federal, the State(s), or both.<BR/><BR/>And the more I think on it, the more my mind is convinced that this is where the idea of balance really comes to bear. In other words...<BR/><BR/>the nature of political forces being as they are centrifugal, and centripetal (e.g., the individual to the local - local to individual; local to State - State to local; State to federal - federal to State), balanced distribution seems primary in importance!<BR/><BR/>Does that make any sense?Terry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27070282.post-1161919755820579732006-10-26T22:29:00.000-05:002006-10-26T22:29:00.000-05:00DW,Well-said, brother.The point that I would impre...DW,<BR/><BR/>Well-said, brother.<BR/><BR/>The point that I would impress upon the reader is that achieving the goals we desire requires a pretty dramatic shift in thinking. Once such a shift is attained, this will change the way we speak. And once that is successful, this will change the way we act.<BR/><BR/>And indeed, the federal has become more democratic, for as Webster astutely notes, the federal's design is monarchical, yet when reflecting on the distribution of powers, our imbalanced government has the federal head focusing on too many domestic matters.<BR/><BR/>I have stated it before, but it bears repeating: I maintain that the federal should be involved in domestic matters to the extent that it acts as a safeguard for the inalienable rights of the citizens of the U. States when in conflict with the several State governments. Should a state attempt to infringe upon those rights that are given to us by our Creator and cannot be transferred to any other class of persons, the federal is within its authority to take whatever measures necessary to protect Her citizens' inalienable rights.<BR/><BR/>-AHMichael Tamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16861899520031696061noreply@blogger.com