VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:09:58 08/01/06 Tue
Author: Chuck in ND
Subject: I guess I would want to know
In reply to: Kellen Nebelski (TTB) 's message, "10th amendment analysis" on 16:44:14 07/31/06 Mon

what you think the CP stand is on state's rights?

I think your interpretation is correct. Each state has a constitution that outlines what powers have been delegated to the state gov. All other rights/powers would be retained by the people.

My biggest objection to LP is their pragmatism. Nearly every argument Harry Browne made against (name it--Post Office, Soc Sec, public Ed, etc etc) is "it doesn't work. Private individuals can do it better than the gov". While I agreed with nearly every one of his conclusions, his reasons for arriving at those conclusions were flawed.

What if, suddenly, miraculously, the gov COULD do things more efficiently than private individuals? Does that mean that now that the gov is more efficient we should turn these powers over to the gov?

The LP frames nearly all foriegn policy questions in economic terms. I think that is flawed as well.

And then there are the neo-LPs--who reject all moral considerations in political debate. Historically political thought has been grounded in religious thought (What is the nature of man? What is the purpose of society? What is the source of soveriegnty? etc) But the neo-LPs seem to think we better than that now and reject morality (or religion) as a base to any discussion. Bad idea.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.