why don't Democrats understand libertarians?

Don't know about that, but do know that any time I speak to someone of your mental capacity, I'm doing you a favor.

 

Boiling the extremely complex international systems and decades of history that comprise modern foreign policy into "it's essence" is unfair to everyone.

 

Contract law is dictated by the states, and even then, it's dictated by courts and common law. Having a weaker central government wouldn't diminish the citizens' ability to engage in enforceable contracts in the slightest.

 

Sounds like you need to start reading more non-fiction as opposed to studying the fantastical biological systems of a fairy-tale organism.

 

Sure

"When Ron Paul went to the Republican National Convention in August, he brought with him the youngest delegation in the history of the Republican Party.

How were they welcomed? When they arrived, their signs were confiscated and torn up before their eyes. The Maine delegation was summarily unseated and sent home because they contained too many Paul supporters. At the last minute, the Rules Committee changed the ballot access requirement from five states to eight states to prevent Ron Paul’s name from being entered into nomination. They even prevented his name from being mentioned from the podium!

The establishment’s abominable treatment of Ron Paul supporters at the RNC was only the culmination of a corrupt and shameful primary season. In Louisiana, Ron Paul delegates were arrested when it became clear that they were in the majority at the state convention. In Arizona, desperate party bosses turned off the lights at the state convention to prevent Ron Paul supporters from being elected to a party position. In both Maine and Nevada, Romney campaign officials were caught distributing fake delegate slates. In Missouri, police were called to shut down the St. Charles caucus when a Ron Paul victory appeared imminent."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...ction-by-disenfranchising-ron-paul-supporters

http://www.thenation.com/blog/16961...ted-atrociously-ron-paul-refuses-back-romney#

http://www.texastribune.org/2012/08/27/paul-supporters-wont-go-quietly-night/

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/29/chaos_on_the_convention_floor_as

"In June, a group of 132 supporters of Paul, demanding the freedom as delegates to the upcoming Republican party national convention to cast votes for Paul, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the Republican National Committee and 55 state and territorial Republican party organizations for allegedly coercing delegates to choose Mitt Romney as the party’s presidential nominee.[117] The suit alleged that there had been “a systematic campaign of election fraud at state conventions,” employing rigging of voting machines, ballot stuffing, and falsification of ballot totals. The suit further pointed to incidents at state conventions, including acts of violence and changes in procedural rules, allegedly intended to deny participation of Paul supporters in the party decision-making and to prevent votes from being cast for Paul."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Republican_National_convention

 

It appears that you answered your own question, Troianii. Many Leftists simply don't understand that economic freedom and individual freedom are inextricably linked to one another. The less you have of the former the less you have of the latter. Our Forefathers understood this quite clearly - the American Revolution, as you are probably aware, began as a tax revolt.

Of course, as you head further out towards the socialist/communist fringe, you're going to find Leftists who understand this but don't care. Those people are invested in an inherently authoritarian ideology that necessarily has to deprive people of their economic and individual freedom. All they're worried about is power and control - deprived of that, they cannot impose their ideology and agenda on others. Step out of line, and you get sent to the Gulag or harassed by the central authorities (such as a weaponized IRS).

 

Government would still be essential for enforcing these contracts. More transactions would mean more contracts; more contracts would mean more government. How is that better than the current system?

Traditional libertarians are basically "new federalists" who believe that the only thing the federal government should do is regulate interstate commerce and defend the nation with a military. There seems to be a fear of centralized governments, but without much explanation. What I'm increasingly hearing from libertarians is that the government itself is redundant, and not needed to enforce any law -- including the Constitution -- and that state laws and state taxes are almost as bad as a centralized government with state taxes. Many of these libertarians only recognize the first 15 Amendments because the 16th allows enforcement of "confiscatory taxes." (AKA "Violent government theft.").

The current system isn't perfect but if you go to the most primitive society on earth, they'll have a similar system -- where societal rules are enforced by a central group. It's normal and natural and a part of being a society.

 

How?

But we haven't had big intrusive government for all the time we've had capitalism, and we haven't seen any cities burn down because of it.

Of course they do. Since they privately own their land they have every incentive to improve the yields from it. If their land could be taken away from them at a whim, they'd have no incentive to improve it. That's why farmers for example, are careful not to degrade their soil. Because even if they plan on retiring, their land is still more valuable with better soil when they go to sell it.

Oh yes it has, especially in the economic sense. It worked wonderfully.

Which is why you should never simply sit idly at home like a grumpy old white man. Those stupid good for nothing hippies need to be worked against at every oportunity!

Of course not. A wonder would entail suprise and astonishment, but there's none of that because Swedish sucess is to be expected.

 

Traditional or Jeffersonian libertarians have never feared centralized government. They simply understand that for Man to be free, power must be invested in the individual, not the government or the state. This also happens to be one of the principles our Republic is founded upon and it is this principle that neo-socialist "progressives" such as Barack Obama seek to fundamentally transform.

There is no shortage of explanations out there articulating the "libertarian" opposition to the centralization of power going all the way back to the Founding generation. To say there hasn't been "much explanation" is simply false.
.

 

Every transaction one makes is an implicit contract. Like I said, contract law is a basic function of government and has absolutely nothing to do with the central government.

No. We don't even think government should be in the business of "regulating interstate commerce" - at least not in the modern interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. (Wickard v. Filburn)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

I simply don't believe a strong central government is necessary, nor is it efficient. What does a politician from NYC know about ranch life in Wyoming? Besides, the bill of rights is meant to protect the citizens from the government - to suggest that "libertarians" don't want the government to enforce the constitution is preposterous and a total mischaracterization of everything "libertarians" stand for

This has nothing to do with de-centralization. You can start a threat about anarchy and we can have a philosophical discussion there, but libertarianism and anarchy are not the same thing.

 

Your explanation doesn't account for Jefferson's support of federal supremacy.

Without the ability to appeal to higher authorities, it's a petrie dish for corruption.

If a person, as an individual body, buys your product or service, sure it's an implicit contract. But, if you can't pay your rent because they didn't pay up, who do you you appeal to?

If your state is getting ripped off by another state, who do you you appeal to?

 

The smaller and less centralized a government is, the easier it is to rid it of corruption.

You file a complaint in state court for breach of contract.

A US district court for diversity reasons, and they will apply the common law for contracts of the state in which the contract was formed. I don't understand how this is relevant, unless you're suggesting that "libertarians" don't believe in the judiciary, which is ridiculous.

 

Sorry...looks like I touched a nerve. It wasn't my intention to get inside your head. My bad.

 

The answer to how is a complicated one.

Essentially put, by trying to destroy America from within, such as the eroding of our rights.

Overtaxing, taking away everything they can from us in any dirty way they can.

Forbidding us from defending ourselves and taking away our firearms, again with dirty rotten trucks.

Slowly but surely they are destroying America.

If you want more you want to search for things like "the globalist agenda".

 

I think you are hippy dippy anarchists who don't even realize it--so in a way, both parties are right.

 

1. Many people in general don't get how Libertarians expect to maintain national and global security
with an isolationist approach. So that loses a lot of people regardless of party or view for or against war.

2. I found out that of the people who don't relate to Christians, Conservatives, Republicans or Constitutionalists:
Many do not understand or believe in the concept of natural laws that are self-existent,
and that the Constitutional laws and govt are derived from this "authority."

Some of my liberal friends and buddies online who "don't get this concept"
think of the conservative belief in God and natural laws as a 'religion'

My prochoice Democrat friends who do not derive any authority or empowerment "directly from natural laws"
instead rely on PARTY and ELECTED officials from that PARTY to represent their power "for them."

So this is more like a RELIGION.
where people do not have equal independence and equal authority,
but depend on their "church leaders" and "religious numbers as a collective group"
to be represented and feel they have any power through these other people.

I don't know who is studying this phenomena as political or collective psychology
but since it is affecting our national govt and policies/political process,
we should study it and have an understanding of how this collective influence works.

If people cannot change their thinking, perceptions, beliefs or interpretation of law
without going through a political hierarchy through their party and depending on their "leaders to interpret and establish law for them"
then we have a huge issue with political beliefs and religions controlling people and disruptive govt function by imposing religiously.

I believe this is serious, but the people caught in the biases
don't always recognize what is going on.

They truly believe their beliefs are the truth
and the other groups is the religious cult that is messing things up.

Very few see that it is mutual, that people of both parties are imposing their beliefs through govt.
and that this is unconstitutional because of other people's beliefs, or lack of, which are equally protected by law from discrimination by creed.

 

Sounds like an argument for stable political institutions and capitalism. Not for libertarianism or against the current social market regime we have now which has done so very very well.

 

Capitalism in and of itself is not an evil economic system.

 

I think the Libertarian and Democratic platforms are far more similar in outcomes than the GOP and Libertarians.

Gay marriage, Libertarians don't want to make any laws against it, and it's okay for Democrats
Abortion, Libertarians don't want to make any laws against it, and it's okay for Democrats
Foreign wars, Libertarians don't want them, and Democrats want them a whole lot less than the GOP
Legalization of Marijuana, Libertarians don't want to make any laws against it, and more Democrats approve than Republicans

Now I do realize that the GOP says they're closer to Libertarians on fiscal issues than Democrats...but the GOP has historically spent as much as any Democratic administration. So I wonder

 

You are of course, free to elaborate on Libertarian foreign policy.

 

The GOP really couldn't be less fiscally conservative, and yet they fool their "fiscally conservative" base into voting for them election after election. True fiscal conservatism hasn't been present in American politics for decades.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_neutrality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-imperialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

 

Because Jefferson never supported such a thing. In fact, he argued that states had the right to nullify any act of Congress that violated the Constitution.

Obviously, that "states rights" argument is a rejection of federal supremacy.
.

 

I can pull links. That's a far cry from explaining Libertarian Foreign Policy. I guess you can't do it huh?

 

Wow. Do you really need me to summarize the text of those links for you?