5 ms·

I've been tempted to try to coin the term "paleolibertarian": the original meaning of the word was much more left-leaning. http://youtu.be/RxPUvQZ3rc http://you

by lukifer 13y ago

I've been tempted to try to coin the term "paleolibertarian": the original meaning of the word was much more left-leaning. http://youtu.be/RxPUvQZ3rc http://youtu.be/RxPUvQZ3rc I think there is an oppurtunity for a coalition between the far left and the far right over civil liberties, if only we can "agree to disagree" on economic theories until the rule of law under the Constitution has been restored. (There's even a good brand hook built-in: the Green Tea Party.)

ameister14 13y ago
I see talk about 'restoring the Constitution' a lot; but the truth is the Constitution is inherently flawed. It was broken (or fixed) the first time within a few years of its ratification, and failed utterly with the Civil War. In the process, the government of the United States actually became much more stable. Unfortunately, I don't believe it's about the Constitution right now. I think the problem is that civic priorities have shifted.
- tracker1 13y ago
  The Bill of Rights (first "fix") was mainly to restore certain civil protections that were established in the Articles of Confederation that the Constitutions ratification took away, or didn't expressly spell out (10th Amendment). I think after the 1830's decision to use the commerce clause in more encroach into a broader role that it was a pragmatic decision at the time... however, that expanded role continued into what we have today. We should emphatically NOT have domestic arms of the U.S. Government with the power that the DoJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, ATF, DEA, ICE and their ilk are holding.
  - ameister14 13y ago
    Not really talking Bill of Rights, more alluding to Judicial Review, a process not provided for within the constitution and in fact specifically not included. And the truth is, after the Civil War we shifted from a Federation into a Nation, with a National government. It's a situation we either have to accept or attempt to change, but that's what exists.
rmc 13y ago
The US Constitution has a bit about privacy for US citizens. People like me, or @cstross would not be covered by it, and the NSA would legally be allowed to spy on us. Go beyond the US Constitution.
- hyperventilator 13y ago
  >Go beyond the US Constitution Yes. But now your are talking about a world government. Do you think the one you hate would not have a major role? If they didn't have a major role would that really be a world government? Your country could try to negotiate anti-spying treaties, but your government is likely complicit. Maybe there is a seed for world governance here, but more likely politicians will play both sides as they always do.
  - rmc 13y ago
    <snark>The EU.</snark> In actual fact, you can just expand a constitution to explicitly include privacy for all humans, regardless of citizenship/nationality. The US courts could hold the US government to that standard.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Huh, didn't realize that Stross is British. The fight against spying there seems even more uphill, to say the least. While the existing Constitution should be upheld as a first step, I do believe that some or all of the human rights protections should extend to all persons, not just citizens, and that spying on allies during peacetime is unacceptable. On a practical level, international spying is just a run-around for domestic spying anyway: we snoop on the UK's servers, they snoop on ours, and whoops, data on our own citzens! I also think there is an oppurtunity for transnational democratic organizations, as depicted in Neal Stephenson's concept of "phyles". With enough people banding together worldwide, we can protect human rights with force, yet without violence.
saraid216 13y ago
Talking about "restoring the Constitution" is a good way to convince me that you don't know what you're talking about and aren't worth throwing in with. I believe in the future, not the past. Rather than holding up a piece of Scripture and warning me not to sin from the straight and narrow, I'd like to be presented with a vision for life lived. Or, more succinctly, "Build bridges, not guard rails." It irritates me that American politics is often an exclusive-or choice between freedom and justice.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Oh, I totally agree; the Constitution derives its authority from human rights principles which transcend nationality. I would love to see amendments which strengthened those rights and extended some or all protections to non-citizens. The meme of "Restore the Constitution" can either be seen as a first step towards that goal, and/or a realistic low bar for what can actually be achieved. (The Constitution has always been somewhat broken, given our history with slavery, suffrage, and wartime abuses, but it's a more comforting narrative for most conservatives.) If we could somehow pass a new constitutional amendment, I think the most urgent matter is electoral reform: instant run-off, and publicly financed elections. Whether you believe in a big or small government, we deserve one that we genuinely believe reflects our values, rather than the blatant corruption and "lesser evils" we live with now. If you remove the left-right smokescreen, Americans agree on more issues than it would seem; restoring faith in the democratic process would catalyze new progress in other arenas from there.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > The meme of "Restore the Constitution" can either be seen as a first step towards that goal, and/or a realistic low bar for what can actually be achieved. But it's not a first step towards that goal. A significant number of people who chant "Restore the Constitution" mean "before the Fourteenth Amendment". > If we could somehow pass a new constitutional amendment That's not restoration. > I think the most urgent matter is electoral reform: instant run-off, and publicly financed elections. That's fine. You don't need to rally behind "Restore the Constitution" to advocate for that.
nl 13y ago
To quote Charlie: I'm not American All this talk of "the Constitution" as though it is some kind of 100% correct holy document handed down from on high to our superior ancestors is pretty irrelevant in the rest of the world.
- rmc 13y ago
  And countries with a constitution often change or reboot it. Not all countries with a constitution view it as some holy sacred document that doesn't need replacing. Ireland reset its constitution a few times, France is on like it's "Fifth Republic" by now.
- saraid216 13y ago
  A good number of Americans treat the Constitution the way a good number of Christians treat the Bible. Veneration of its text, deviation is grounds for condemnation, have neither read it nor actually studied it from any useful (historical, ethical, or otherwise) context, asserts meaningless claims about their original intention, and invoke it mainly as an appeal to authority via clobber verses or legal sounding language. It's extremely frustrating.

by lukifer 13y ago

ameister14 13y ago

I see talk about 'restoring the Constitution' a lot; but the truth is the Constitution is inherently flawed. It was broken (or fixed) the first time within a few years of its ratification, and failed utterly with the Civil War. In the process, the government of the United States actually became much more stable. Unfortunately, I don't believe it's about the Constitution right now. I think the problem is that civic priorities have shifted.

tracker1 13y ago
The Bill of Rights (first "fix") was mainly to restore certain civil protections that were established in the Articles of Confederation that the Constitutions ratification took away, or didn't expressly spell out (10th Amendment). I think after the 1830's decision to use the commerce clause in more encroach into a broader role that it was a pragmatic decision at the time... however, that expanded role continued into what we have today. We should emphatically NOT have domestic arms of the U.S. Government with the power that the DoJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, ATF, DEA, ICE and their ilk are holding.
- ameister14 13y ago
  Not really talking Bill of Rights, more alluding to Judicial Review, a process not provided for within the constitution and in fact specifically not included. And the truth is, after the Civil War we shifted from a Federation into a Nation, with a National government. It's a situation we either have to accept or attempt to change, but that's what exists.

rmc 13y ago

The US Constitution has a bit about privacy for US citizens. People like me, or @cstross would not be covered by it, and the NSA would legally be allowed to spy on us. Go beyond the US Constitution.

hyperventilator 13y ago
>Go beyond the US Constitution Yes. But now your are talking about a world government. Do you think the one you hate would not have a major role? If they didn't have a major role would that really be a world government? Your country could try to negotiate anti-spying treaties, but your government is likely complicit. Maybe there is a seed for world governance here, but more likely politicians will play both sides as they always do.
- rmc 13y ago
  <snark>The EU.</snark> In actual fact, you can just expand a constitution to explicitly include privacy for all humans, regardless of citizenship/nationality. The US courts could hold the US government to that standard.
lukifer 13y ago
Huh, didn't realize that Stross is British. The fight against spying there seems even more uphill, to say the least. While the existing Constitution should be upheld as a first step, I do believe that some or all of the human rights protections should extend to all persons, not just citizens, and that spying on allies during peacetime is unacceptable. On a practical level, international spying is just a run-around for domestic spying anyway: we snoop on the UK's servers, they snoop on ours, and whoops, data on our own citzens! I also think there is an oppurtunity for transnational democratic organizations, as depicted in Neal Stephenson's concept of "phyles". With enough people banding together worldwide, we can protect human rights with force, yet without violence.

saraid216 13y ago

Talking about "restoring the Constitution" is a good way to convince me that you don't know what you're talking about and aren't worth throwing in with. I believe in the future, not the past. Rather than holding up a piece of Scripture and warning me not to sin from the straight and narrow, I'd like to be presented with a vision for life lived. Or, more succinctly, "Build bridges, not guard rails." It irritates me that American politics is often an exclusive-or choice between freedom and justice.

lukifer 13y ago
Oh, I totally agree; the Constitution derives its authority from human rights principles which transcend nationality. I would love to see amendments which strengthened those rights and extended some or all protections to non-citizens. The meme of "Restore the Constitution" can either be seen as a first step towards that goal, and/or a realistic low bar for what can actually be achieved. (The Constitution has always been somewhat broken, given our history with slavery, suffrage, and wartime abuses, but it's a more comforting narrative for most conservatives.) If we could somehow pass a new constitutional amendment, I think the most urgent matter is electoral reform: instant run-off, and publicly financed elections. Whether you believe in a big or small government, we deserve one that we genuinely believe reflects our values, rather than the blatant corruption and "lesser evils" we live with now. If you remove the left-right smokescreen, Americans agree on more issues than it would seem; restoring faith in the democratic process would catalyze new progress in other arenas from there.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > The meme of "Restore the Constitution" can either be seen as a first step towards that goal, and/or a realistic low bar for what can actually be achieved. But it's not a first step towards that goal. A significant number of people who chant "Restore the Constitution" mean "before the Fourteenth Amendment". > If we could somehow pass a new constitutional amendment That's not restoration. > I think the most urgent matter is electoral reform: instant run-off, and publicly financed elections. That's fine. You don't need to rally behind "Restore the Constitution" to advocate for that.

nl 13y ago

To quote Charlie: I'm not American All this talk of "the Constitution" as though it is some kind of 100% correct holy document handed down from on high to our superior ancestors is pretty irrelevant in the rest of the world.

rmc 13y ago
And countries with a constitution often change or reboot it. Not all countries with a constitution view it as some holy sacred document that doesn't need replacing. Ireland reset its constitution a few times, France is on like it's "Fifth Republic" by now.
saraid216 13y ago
A good number of Americans treat the Constitution the way a good number of Christians treat the Bible. Veneration of its text, deviation is grounds for condemnation, have neither read it nor actually studied it from any useful (historical, ethical, or otherwise) context, asserts meaningless claims about their original intention, and invoke it mainly as an appeal to authority via clobber verses or legal sounding language. It's extremely frustrating.