Which is likely to happen first, uptopia or dystopia?

thing944 wrote:So they're just tight asses?

No they are actually for less gov regulation.

Like the anti sodomy laws that exist in Texas would not have been passed under a Libertarian. many things that the gov regulates like the amount of water a toilet uses and what kind of light bulbs you can buy would not be regulated.

They are a bit closer to anarchy but they recognize the need for a centralized government for common defense and interstate commerce. but the state and local law, not Federal, would be first.

Constitution is created to be interpreted, otherwise, we could still have slavery. O.o

Another problem I have with libertarians is that they allow discrimination, hence Rand Paul, and that they are stuck in civil war era thought of "state's rights" which should have been, and presumably was, settled by Lincoln.

Im sorry, but i was under the impression that you were a country.

I believe in State's rights. Much easier to deal with the politics if it doesn't work out, you just remove the state leadership rather then having to remove the federal. Right now, if I could, I would vote every single person out of Congress, vote out the President too, but the people don't have the right on their own, and if they do feel that way they are labelled terrorists and put on a watch list.

Dray The Fingerless wrote:Im sorry, but i was under the impression that you were a country.

Our constitution reserves the rights of the state to manage internal affairs. The only thing the federal gov should be doing is facilitating intrastate commerce and mediating disputes between the states. The commerce clause in the constitution has been perverted to the goals of others that seek power for the federal government.

So your not even a country....well, your not even supposed to be a country. more like a bunch of little countries.... with a mediator and a global army.

Democratic Republic. That's what it means. You vote people to lead the state, then people to represent the state in the federal government. The federal side deals with external affairs, the state side deal with internal affairs.

^Rofl Dray^^

We tried that version guys, with state's rights.

Ever heard of the Articles of Confederation?

Yeah, that was revised because of the voting procedure requiring unanimous approval. Has nothing to do with state rights in and of themselves as the Constitution already guarantees state's rights. We've just conveniently disregarded it.

You are wrong aard.

http://www.radford.edu/~shepburn/weaknesses_of_the_articles.htm

have fun with your wrongness.

Kind of irrelevant there. I meant to say you stretch out to nearly being almost just a cohalition of 50 different countries. But you still go in as a democratic republic due to your federal government. Each state is in and of itself, a democratic republic thou. The definition of the term is not american btw, it is ancient, as old as Rome and Greece, wich werent state organized.

And any documentation, unless actually written by one of the people who voted on the Constitution is here-say as well. Even my point is considered speculation, the only things I see in the list that could be considered completely correct are the unanimous voting, and the necessity for taxation by Congress. The original Constitution still leaves the states with the majority of power.

Well then, that means that it is relative and that it doesn't matter because we could all be right and wrong so we have learned nothing from the past... yay

Well a couple of those points were subjective views, and we can't propose to speak for dead people. The way I was taught, it mentions the unanimous vote, inability to tax, and no separation of powers.

The way I was taught was
http://www.radford.edu/~shepburn/weaknesses_of_the_articles.htm

Two different schools of thought. Doesn't mean either is right, and we're seriously getting off topic.