Is this a Libertarian position?

reply to post by Misoir


The Tenth amendment absolutely does allow that right. In the post Lochner era, a state's police power is extremely broad, especially concerning economic regulation. However you can't just look at the plain meaning of an amendment from 1787 and a case from the 1920s and come to the conclusion that Arkansas can go socialist tomorrow. Here are some legal problems that stand in the way:

1. Due Process

Transitioning to a socialist government would involve a massive taking of private property. This requires massive due process. Due process as applied to the states is a post Civil War invention (the 14th Amendment). The quickest way to get around this roadblock would be draconian taxation, regulation and the use of that money to duplicate the services of private industry until the capitalist infrastructure eventually collapsed.

2. Preemption

The Federal government's laws can preempt state laws in numerous ways. Often times states are allowed to go above and beyond Fed regulations (see minimum wage laws that exceed the Fed minimum). But another example is 'field preemption' where the Federal government's scheme is so extensive and all encompassing that states must stay out of the way (see the FDA or Obama's argument in the Arizona immigration issue). If a state is limited in the actions it can take with regard to immigration, drugs, power plants, etc then its easy to see how this might pose a threat to the plan of going socialist locally.

3. Full faith and Credit

Even if you crash all private industry in your state and find a way to not let the Federal preemption of certain regulatory schemes stop you, there's still the issue of other states. Citizens and businesses in other states are guaranteed by the constitution the right to trade with the citizens of your state, for instance. So your socialist government better be damn good and damned fast at getting all those products and services out there other wise your just gonna be swamped on day 2 by entrepreneurs from other states. Capitalism will just spring anew.

These are just three of the issues. Honestly there's probably 1,000 road blocks. So yea, in theory you have the right. But its not going to happen.

reply to post by snusfanatic


I didn't mean full scale Socialist, I just meant Social Democratic like western Europe.

reply to post by snusfanatic


Oh, sh** haha. I got so caught up in the counter-factual of a socialist state within the union I forgot to answer whether or not its a libertarian position. How exactly do you define libertarian? I've read some of the posts on the previous page and I'd just like to say: It is extremely difficult and perhaps useless to try separating the libertarian movement from the libertarian party.

The word libertarian is actually pretty new. It was proposed in a time when people who believed in classical-liberal ideals were trying to figure out how to brand themselves without being mistaken for modern liberals. The term 'whig' was actually in the running for a while, since that was the last political party that represented the ideals. See Hayak's introduction to "Why I am Not a Conservative."

It would, therefore, be an extremely difficult task to separate the term libertarian from the term classical-liberal. I would argue, impossible. After all, the word is modern synonym.

This being the case, it is absolutely not Libertarian (and I'm talking about both the ideology and the party here) to advocate a socialist state on any level of government.

reply to post by Misoir


Hmm... Social Democratic eh?

That would be a lot easier to implement, although you'd still have to jump those three hurdles just on a smaller level.

As far as how this applies to my second post, the people who started the libertarian movement were all well aware of democratic socialism and in many ways the word libertarian was a way to distinguish from other "liberals" who were really social-democrats without losing the whole liberty-vibe.

The two are utterly incompatible. Its like asking if the abolition of the welfare state is consistent with democratic socialism. They're almost as close to opposite as you can get in the mainstream political spectrum. Remember that The Road to Serfdom is more about democratic socialism then it is about full blown communism.

Libertarianism is usually, in America, confined to the National level of politics.. not meaning that there are not Libertarians at the local level (in fact, all Libertarians holding office are at local levels) but that in American politics it's divided. Libertarians can fall into either Neo-Anarchist or Confederates .. some Libertarians hate Government all together, be it Federal, State or Local. Some Libertarians hate the Federal Government and wish to see it reduced drastically, if not removed all together, to see the States take up most responsibility.

Personally I wish we could exist in near-anarchic form, but Human nature prevents it.. so I understand the necessary evil of localized Government. I personally consider myself in favor of a Confederacy over the current Federalist/Republic model we currently have.. this gives States more power to define their own identities.

So a Libertarian can be both a Libertarian and a Socialist at the same time, referring to two different political theaters. You can't be a Libertarian Socialist in the same political theater however, though there are those that claim otherwise, it's an oxymoron.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Yea man, I admire your knowledge but I have to completely disagree with your conclusion.

There might be splits in the libertarian coalition about where government should be centered, but neither the party nor the ideology properly understood would call for an organized socialist government on any level.

Libertarians are neo-classical-liberals. The movement would never condone the level of state intervention into private property and affairs that a socialist government would entail. The issue of federalism is a uniquely American one and big topic of discussion in the party but even the most ardent federalist or confederate who calls themselves a 'libertarian' could not be a 'socialist' as I'm taking it to mean in this thread (welfare state, etc).

Libertarianism isn't an ideology about the rights of man as related to the strength of a national level government. Its an ideology about the rights of man as related to ANY government.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Socialist is an economic model ran through government...perhaps you confuse this with socialism. Maybe I am not using the right terminology and often many times these terms are confusing when trying to label a concept. Having a social leaning philosophy is more in line with libertarians than it is with fascism in any form be it capitalistic or socialistic. Apparently a lot of people that say libertarians cannot be social leaning and still be a libertarian. I say those that think this are thinking inside the box. Taxation does not have to exist in it's current form to support the needs of the community, whatever those needs are. Forced labor also does not have to exist to supply the needs of a community.

So here I am advocating as a social libertarian that does not believe in taxing you to pay for me, and you say it's an oxymoron? No it is not. Expand the box and redesign the rules of society in what is fair for all...remembering that corporations have no right to operate without government and effectively the peoples authority, rules can be set up by the people for the benefit of the people. This means that any corporation or industry should and could be regulated by the people for their own prosperity. There is no right to run an insurance company. There is no right to drill oil from the ground. These are allowed by the people for their own benefit and we allow them to get rich from it. However, when any system fails to do justice to the people as a whole, that system should be quashed and reformed in a manner that benefits the people. I advocate for fair systems, that serve the needs of the people. I say it is the peoples right to decide their own future, their own fate, and their own way of living.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Let me go a little deeper. There seems to be a conflation in this thread between constitutionalism and federalism with 'libertarianism.'

On one hand this is understandable. If we had to label the founding fathers, the quickest way would be just to slap the label 'classical-liberal' on them, and by association 'libertarian.' But the ideas are just as British as they are American and any serious conflation with the Constitution would be misguided, no matter how inspired the Constitution and federalism are by classical-liberal ideals.

There's a reason why the Constitution provides citizens of the states with a state level republican government. And there's a reason why the 14th Amendment (remember Lincoln was a former whig/classical liberal) was eventually interpreted to relate to states and their citizens. Or look to the classical-liberal abolitionists who were arguing against slavery on economic grounds and how that movement helped spur the eventual expansion of Federal control.

De-centralized government is not an in-disposable element of libertarianism. It may be one of its greatest ideas but its not a defining point. The classical liberals of the early 18th century were not American at all. The Classical liberals in the late 18th were the ones arguing for national unity. Classical liberals in the 19th century were the ones exerting Federal supremacy to better secure the true goals of libertarianism.

Federalism and decentralization owe a lot to classical-liberty but classical liberty is not in any way wed to decentralization.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


You're theory is definitely 'outside the box' and I respect your views but I suggest you do some reading into the history of libertarianism and classical-liberty.

Libertarianism/classical-liberty principles do, in fact, state that you have the right to drill oil from the ground as long as you own the ground. And, for that matter, they do in fact, state that you have the right to own land.

I'm not quite sure how you're defining libertarian either? I am NOT dissing on your political theory at all. I'm just not understanding where you're coming from on this and I'd be happy to shoot questions and answers back and forth both ways.

I see the distinction between social libertarianism and general libertarianism. And if that's your only point, that you can be a social libertarian without buying into the economic stuff that's fine. But in a thread that dived deep into the question of whether or not you can be a general 'libertarian' and a socialist at the same time (no), I just don't doubt how many directions we're getting ready to take this thing.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Ok reading it again, I believe you're conflating the ideas the sovereignty of the population to self-govern and the ideas of classical-liberty. This is a sad part of classical-liberty and I hate to say it, but its generally accepted in the theoretical/philosophical end of classical-liberty/libertarianism that a dictatorship that respects the economic/free exercise of conscious rights of the people may be preferable to a democracy that restricts those rights. That's where the idea of 'tyranny of the majority' or however you want to say it comes from. Of course, the best case scenario under the libertarian philosophy is a self-representative government that respects economic and religious liberties, etc etc etc. But self representation is not a necessary condition (and especially not a sufficient condition) to libertarianism. I hate to say it, but libertarianism would prefer a supreme dictator who allowed the free exercise of religion and expression of economic interests to a democracy that squashes those rights. Its not a proud part of the philosophy, but its a true part.

While most libratarians are right leaning o see no reason it should clash with all socilist/communist philosophys. libratarianism is all about maintaining an individuals freedoms, surely this should include freedom for cohersive market fources and the nigh absolute power of capatilist supercorperations. ultimately a person should not be obliged to work but do so because they see the benifit, socity should protect this right by offering a bare minimum of resources to those who chose this path (we cannot sit by and watch them die) but offer more as an insentive to work. hence there is no need for fourced labor in a communist system and governancy by direct democracy and workers councils/commities avoids issues with centrilisation/goverment control. closest to my own standing on this is anarcho-communism (look it up on wiki, i would provide a link but cannot from a mobile).

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Government does NOT require the citizen to purchase any form of insurance. Well until Obamacare.

Government requires that the citizen has the financial ability to cover another citizen’s expenses if they “harm” the other. This is Financial Responsibility. Most citizens find that it makes economical sense to provide the Financial Responsibility by some form of insurance.

This is one of the major arguments against Obamacare. This is the first time in our history that the Government “Requires” the citizen to purchase insurance. Which is totally outside the scope of government. Government does have the responsibility to ensure that one citizens actions does not “harm” another, but forcing the citizen to provide for their own healthcare through a governmental plan is socialist.

reply to post by snusfanatic


In America the resurgence of the Libertarian movement has a large portion of the group that is explicitly against the Federal Government. For instance I believe states should have the right to do what ever they want.. as long as they stay within the confines of the Constitution.. if Maryland wants to be pure free Capitalist, good for them.. if California wants to be a Socialist nanny state, fine by me, I just wont live there. If Texas wants to be a Republic with minimal government interference, then hell, I'll probably move there.. but all states and their population should be allowed to determine their own government.. it's a principle American idea that has been around since Jefferson advised the people determine their government, and have the right to dissolve and create as the people decide.

Some people (my self included) have a hard time coming to grasp with their taxes being spent on people 3k miles away.. why should Washington pay for New Jersey, or North Dakota pay for California? .. Many more people are more accepting of local governments taking care of local people.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


"Social Libertarian" IS an Oxymoron because your advocating that Government NOT infringe on your rights, tax you to pay for others, and all around stay out of your life. You then say you're a Socialist at the same political level and advocate Government pay and take care of people, which would involve countless infringements on individual liberties. Yes, it's an oxymoron .. it makes no sense.. and quite frankly it's such a stupid idea that I don't even debate it on ATS because in the end everyone does the same thing: Throws a wiki link and declare it must be true if Wiki said so.

reply to post by Rockpuck


At the sake of argument, let me say that corporations are not individuals. Groups of people are not individuals. Government is not an individual. Classes of people are not individuals. That said if 100 people live in a community and each individually wants to create a scheme where they never have to pay for food again and they agree to work 10 hours a month at a local farm to provide that food, it is no right of any government or corporation to stop them. Additionally, if someone in that 100 people does not want to contribute, they get no benefit from the scheme. In addition the one person that does not want to contribute owns the local food store. He has every right to protest the move to self sustainability as to support it would destroy his business and his future. So in your model of libertarianism, you would deny 99 people their right to not be dependent on a system, to protect the one person that held out to prevent the downfall of his business. I say let him run his business anyway he likes it, but do not prevent 99 individuals from organizing to make his business ineffective, if that is the will and greater benefit of the community.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Not really sure what your going on about or what it has to do with the conversation, but under Libertarianism everyone could have their own farm, a community farm, a coop farm, whatever. It only changes to Socialism when it's a Government farm for a Government store and everyone is forced to work on the farm and get only a portion of the proceeds.

But again, I have no idea what correlation you're trying to make, because it makes no sense.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I personally consider myself in favor of a Confederacy over the current Federalist/Republic model we currently have.

I am reading a series of articles by James Scaminaci III about Ron Paul and the Tea Party on the Political Chili website.

In the first article, he says that "neo-Confederate libertarianism" seeks to re-establish the Confederacy as a Bible-based republic where all laws would have to conform to Biblical teachings.

What do you think of this?