yeah they should have supported the war like him, or does old style democrat mean support BS wars , lyndon johnson style don't libertarians believe in open borders and legalization of drugs, I just can't see either of those gaining much support anytime soon
Past context. I read the Federalist Papers (and the notes and letters back and forth between the founders) a few years back and this was one of the clear points that struck me as to the beauty and wisdom of of our nation's founders creating separation of powers, not just between the three branches of the government, but also between the classes. Originally, the system was set up such that the citizens of each state voted for their representatives and those representatives appointed two individuals to represent the state in the Senate. Because generally speaking, only wealthy landowners were the representatives in the Senate, it became clear as the representatives hammered out the details of our government during the Constitutional Convention, that the common man was being left out of the governing process. To address this issue, the members of the Convention set up the House of Representatives which would represent each state based upon population determined from the most recent census. While the numbers of Representatives in the House is still based upon population, it is clear that they are no longer representing the common man (more like corporate interests--just like the Senate does).
LBJ was not my view of an old democrat, even though he 'technically' was one. He was a sell-out...and that takes no label. Old Dems are more like JFK and RFK. They can be said to be for:No welfare (but heavy local programs), lower taxes, what we consider nominal social changes in society, and good defense. Notice I said he's relatively like them,... That's a big 'L' Libertarian. That's the party, not the philosophy itself. On many levels, so-called libertarians are merely liberals in disguise or atleast that's the things they continuely go after ie they pursue issue such as drug legalization....but they don't focus on the entire philosophy. Real libertarians in history are much more pragmatic, and do not have any modern-liberal leanings e.g Jefferson.
Generally, I agree with you. They knew power in anyones hands had to be tempered. People today get all weird with their delusions of 'democracy'. By any chance can you refer to the part in the Federalist that you believe infers this? I have the book, I'm just interested in linking the two. Although I must note, the federalist was just a matter of advertisement and promotion; while the constitution itself was a coalition of forces. Doesn't make your point moot, just a note. Yes, originally. Although each state could chose their method of picking Senators. So it vaguely enabled the average citizen to influence the Senator to pick positions that favored their state. Senators could put in at one point, and pushed out almost as equally fast. Sometimes states wouldn't have Senators, because the states couldn't chose at the time. It was a much more bipartisan method in most situations. They were statesmen, not pandering politicians. Landowners were the only voters at the begining of our republic. Wouldn't that stand to reason why they were the representives? I'm curious when people other than white landowners could vote? That would be an interesting questioned answered. To me it probably stands to reason, that states slowly started letting others vote. But the average citizen wouldn't be represented, not in the sense we view today. The head-count would be there, just like it is today, but the vote would be in the hands of the white landowner. I don't know. I tend to think our house is much closer to America's pulse. They may not be exactly how we want them, but they're much closer to us. Senators are a chose between two partisan assholes, whom are really beholden to no one. Although they require is: 1) A lot of money to fund their campaign 2)A relative amount of game for people to believe them 3)and a general sentiment that supports their 'values'. That's it. In the house, you have to be a bit jumpy. I'm in favor of a well-planned way back to pre-17 amendment America. As you've noted, there was a differece. Now, I might not see it the same way you do (not sure), but I do think our Founders weren't hoping to have a government of partisan panders. Statesmen!
If your sensabilities lean towards the Constitutional Party, then I think you and I are pretty much on the same page. I'll look up the answer about when non Landowners began voting and get back to you on that.
I like the Consitutional parties general view, not all of it. I would assume you're conservative, but you don't indentify yourself with the Republican party...? You'll find many moderate 'libertarians' like myself favor changes that aren't brought to the public, and that we have quite a bit in common with the conservative cultures. OH, and thanks. I think that would be rather interesting to know.
I like many of the planks of the Libertarian Party, but there are a few that I disagree with so strongly that I can't reconcile myself to the party overall. There's nothing at all I disagree with in the Constitutional Party (which in and of itself is exponentially more conservative than the GOP). Here in Utah, if you are not Republican you are pretty much excluded from the politcal process since as states go, we're about as red as any state can be. I suspect that if more people in Utah took the time to read the Consitutional Party platform, they would find it agrees with them much more than the GOP platform does.
There's somethings of it that I deeply disagree with as well. Big 'L' Libertarians are really idealogues of what's best left in the hands of older classical liberals. Classical liberals and Conservative (perse), were the founding arguements. Modern liberals came out of: Eastern europeans philosophies, rather valid concerns of new industrialism, and a new batch of voters. Unfortunately, rather than taking the concerns to a level I believe would have been appropriate, modern liberals seem to desire the goal of eliminating all cultures that support the old paradigm. I'm not really as social conservative as most conservatives. I think anything that promotes family in America is good, but my positions on abortions/gay marriage are not as solid. I understand the sentiments of both sides, but personally I think if we focused on certain issues, those issue wouldn't be as prevalent. Many Republican representives are following two things 1)Demographics 2)Financing. That's why they are increasingly liberal, and are moving towards an arnold-like governing pattern. This way they can appeal to somethings and still have some of their 'buddies'. I understand your decesion in supporting a third party (if you do), but even I will consider the choices in 2008. If some of the more conservative people are nominated (to the Republican party), I may very well vote for them. Certain issues can't be left to the opposing party in the next eight years or so.
From the book, "Beyond Plutocracy," chapter three: Then from a politicians website, http://www.iwantmyvote.com/recount/history/ ...so I guess the answer is that from state to state, gradually all white males were allowed to vote by the time the Civil War rolled around. Because it was through the states and happend over time, there's no formal date voting privilages were bequeathed upon non-landowners. I hope this information has been helpful.
North, when you write: ...you have to realize that avi8tor and others are wanting their cake and to eat it too. Don't they see that such fragmentation would truly create these so-called hysterical "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens in this country? And other non-mainstream agendas? I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, but, as I understand their particular agendas, lol, it certainly bodes ill for them.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but please explain to me: 1. What fragmentation are you referring to and, 2. What sanctuaries are you referring to, and 3. Why do you refer to sanctuaries as hysterical, 4. What exactly is the cake you refer to that we want to eat and retain, 5. Based upon your answers to 1-4, how does this all bode ill for us. I'm just trying to zero in on specifics since your response was rather cryptic. Just needing a bit more clarification of your point.
2 party system is much better , or they will be colation just for power,mid erm polls and god knows what not ..example is where i live .. India ..politicians would do anything to get into power.
Good to know...what then is your point of view on this topic? Retain the current 2 party system and status quo?
Generally I agree, but I'm defintely for the repeal of the 17th amendment...under strict application that an effective process is always at hand of picking those senators. I still prefer it to be like judicial appointments. Majority requests appointment, and state representives approve. It would even be interesting to give a certain percentage of reps the ability to withdraw the Senators seat, if the states interests are impeded upon. The Senator would be less of a political partisan tool, pandering to the masses, and more of a Statesmen.
And I could even subscribe to that method with certain modifications (more checks and balances in the process)