But the federal government telling the states not to abuse their citizens is a fundamentally libertarian action. I understand how a strict constructionist might feel that way, but libertarianism is about freedom for people, not freedom for lower levels of bureaucracy. If a state is violating the freedoms of people, then libertarianism should support lawful actions to stop that abuse, and surely libertarians shouldn’t attempt to repeal the laws stopping the states from engaging in that abuse.
Unless mainstream American libertarianism is actually a figleaf for right-wing extremist viewpoints like strict constructionism, that is, and it really doesn’t care about people at all. Whichever.
Let’s have some cites of what they’ve actually said.
Is it possible you’re failing to spot the difference? Saying that the US constitution doesn’t give the right to privacy doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t have a right to privacy. What do they say about the French constitution?
Someone truly looking to maximize liberty will note that, in historical context, the switch in Supreme Court Fourth Amendment jurisprudence from a property-protection to a privacy-protection standard has resulted in a marked weakening of Constitutional protections of the individual’s rights, in respect to both the “war on drugs” and other areas.
People like Ron Paul, who don’t like abortion, for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with their relationship to the “libertarian” movement, will often speak in code to their supporters about eliminating the “right to privacy” because that right, as found by the 1965 Griswold case, was one of many foundations for the subsequent decision in Roe v. Wade, and in the time since Roe has come to be considered the primary justification for a Constitutional right to abortion.
Sorry for interrupting the usual parade of “OMG RICH PEOPLE HAVE MORE MONEY THAN POOR PEOPLE” versus “RIDE ON MY RON PAUL BLIMP” irrelevancies to actually answer the question.
Libertarians, in general, reject any limitation on privacy - there will always be people who are typical paleo-conservatives who label themselves as libertarians, there isn’t much anyone can do about it. In addition, there are some people who are big on states rights, so they’ll ask for the feds to nothing, and then ask the states to act in a Libertarian way. In this case they’re just prioritizing one belief over another. And then there are people (like me) who say to themselves “I wish that the Constitution said “X” but I just don’t think that it does - we should change that.”
Next time you hear about Libertarianism, think about an ideology supporting child labor, exploitation of everything and anything for the profit of the exploiter, and the right to kill unlimited number of people with your product before people are aware of the risk to their life so they stop buying it.
The US Constitution does indeed have penumbras, the US Supreme Court says so, and they are the law of the land. The Paultard in chief supports his fantasy version of the US Constitution that does not have privacy rights because the supposed strict constructionism, if adopted by overthrowing 50 years of continuous constitutional jurisprudence the way he wants it overthrown would eliminate privacy rights.
Penumbras were adopted because the SCOTUS wanted to rule as narrowly as possible in accordance with the tradition of US jurisprudence. However, privacy is far more accessible to the plain meaning of the 9th Amendment:
That pretty plainly rejects the “strict constructionist” view that the absence of any right, such as privacy, shall not be used to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Such denial and disparagement is exactly what strict construction is all about: denying non-enumerated rights such as privacy. Strict constructionism is anything but strict constructionism when it comes to the 9th Amendment, the 9th Symphony of American Rights.
Strict Constructionism that denies the 9th, privacy and claims liberty and libertarianism is the kosher bacon of political philosophy.
Strict Constructionists, even by the fake propaganda name, ignore the plain text of the Constitution when it comes do providing people with the basic human decency of privacy. But when it is convenient for them to assign to the Founding Fathers the intent to make corporations “people”, they are more than happy to interpolate into the constitution what simply isn’t there and was never intended because it suits the interests of their political patrons, namely corporations. The other end of this argument is to look at the jurisprudence of privacy for corporations in this country: it far exceeds the scope of privacy for human beings.
Yes, but his argument is ridiculous. It’s based on the idea that they are saying the Constitution is incorrect, which is contrary to everything that has been said on the topic by these candidates. When did Paul ever say he wanted an amendment to add privacy?
Oh, and the idea that Libertarianism just means you want less government is silly. Libertarianism is anti-authoritarian conservatism. It comes with a lot more baggage than just believing that the government is too large. I know several people who want less government interference who are not libertarians. Anarchists are one such example, as are ordinary conservatives.
Heck, I’m pretty anti-authoritarian, but I’m also rather progressive. Hence why I call myself a liberal.
The next poster to use the word “Paultard” - or any alternatives like “libtard,” “conservatard,” “Whigtard,” or anything similar - will get a formal warning.
Exactly. Libertarians are probably disproportionately agnostic/atheist, but not exclusively so. There are many pro-life Democrats, even though the party’s platform is pro-choice. And the LP’s platform is pro-choice, so it’s not some great “gotcha” as some people might think.
Anyone who claims to be a libertarian and doesn’t agree with liberals on civil rights at least 90% of the time is basically deceiving themselves as to what it means to be a libertarian or deceiving others as to whether they are a libertarian. Personally, I don’t think there’s a shortage of either of those types of people.
Nope. “Liberals” view all sorts of civil rights that libertarian don’t agree with. While they may agree that the government cannot discriminate, they would allow private individuals to do so.
Again, wrong. The fundamentally libertarian position is that the fed shouldn’t be telling the states what to do. AND the fundamentally libertarian position is that the states shouldn’t be telling people what to do.
States shouldn’t have anti-sodomy laws (or blue laws, or drinking ages, or marijuana laws, etc)
The fed shouldn’t have anti-sodomy laws (or blue laws, or drinking ages, or marijuana laws, etc)
The fed shouldn’t tell the state not to have those laws.
It should be up to the people of Texas to tell their state government to repeal the anti-sodomy laws, but it would appear tyranny of the majority still rules. And ideally *a libertarian constitution *would prevent such action in the first place.
In the 60s we had the fed telling states to desegregate schools; desegregation is a good thing, but it shouldn’t have been the fed telling the state to do it. But that’s an example of when the fed happens to be right and the state wrong.
Many states are now legalizing same sex marriage, while trying to decriminalize marijuana, those are progressive ideas that the fed is blocking. It works both ways.
Do you now see there are two separate issues? Fed telling the state what to do, and states telling the citizen what to do. Libertarianism is against both.
Note the use of the word lawful. Ron Paul et al are against state abuse of its citizens. And at the same time they believe the action to stop that is UNlawful (ie unconstitutional). Hence, Ron Paul is against the fed telling the state what to do.
That may be the case, but then you’re beef is with them, not libertarianism.
So individual choice and personal liberty reign supreme. The state on any level whether federal, provincial, municipal lacks the authority to enforce any kind of behavior on an individual. Well & good, but what authority protects these individuals, their persons and their rights? Apparently the state is still empowered to protect property, and since posession of property equals power then the holders of property have full control over the rest. It looks to me like libertarianism is simply a shortcut to plutocracy.
The establishment of a democratic state could be seen simply as a collection of individuals joining forces to protect themselves and their liberties from the excesses of power. Lacking the power or means as individuals to oppose abuses of power, they do it collectively.
It looks to me like libertarianism is primarily a means for those who happen to hold economic power - property - to impose their will on the rest of society.
