Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-04-2018, 06:08 AM)Galen Wrote: The Jim Crow agenda was an unfortunate consequence, one of many, from the compromise of allowing slavery to continue after the American Revolution.  I am not a big fan as you might imagine since involuntary servitude is not something libertarians are in favor of.  This forms the basis of the libertarian view of taxation as theft.

The Founding Fathers on the whole, Alexander Hamilton is an exception, could be considered in modern terms to be Minarchist Libertarians.  Murray Rothbard's Conceived In Libery covers this evolution toward individual liberty from Colonial Times to the early Federalist period.  Their agenda was to create a government that was limited in power which was an unheard of idea in the eighteenth century.

Modern liberals and progressives are not and never have been in favor of individual liberty.  The battle always has and always be between liberty and tyranny.

I am not nearly in agreement with calling the Founding Fathers Minarchists. Ben Franklin at least was famous for approving taxes to provide services should a majority go along.  The Constitution allows for collection of taxes to provide an enumerated set of services.  The state and local levels provide other, less limited, services.

In one local town, there was one group of elders that wanted the town to build a senior citizens center, and another group of mostly parents who wanted to build a new school.  At first the two groups worked against each other, thinking they were competing for the same budget dollars.  Later they agreed to lobby for each other, that working together enough votes could be mustered that both could be provided.  Now, I don't see that the majority of the people wanting services and making the payments is tyranny.  If the bulk of a community wants a service enough to pay for it, they should get the service.

So says this guy who never got married, never had children, and has never entered a senior center.  So says a guy who for many years contributed without complaint to an employer based health plan, and does not feel the slightest bit of guilt nowadays for drawing from a government based plan.  I'll pull my weight, expect my due, and no two people need identical services.  

And some work for a strong community, not self interest.

The Constitution written and passed by the founding fathers certainly follows that theory.  While computers and networks could eventually provide bills only for services used and approved of, taxing anyone who lives in a territory and has the representation to vote for or against taxes and services is the best the founding fathers could do.  

Democracy, overall, has proven a good thing.  

I like the theory in general.  In practice, the government  has been bought by the robber barons.  A few pay less than their share, resulting in a huge imbalance of wealth.  A few get services that the majority has no need for and would oppose if they could.  The politicians just care more for those who give large donations than serving the people well.  That is a problem, one that is well within range of being solved these days.  Various people are mad enough at the Establishment to seize the government back.  When they do so, there will be enough anger at the Establishment that they are apt to be severely punished for years of treating the people with contempt.