Big "L" Libertarians vs small "l" libertarians???? wtfisthedifference?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Just get back to what is really in the Constitution:


Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Look, more plagiarism.

Quick leave him a bad rep for not linking his source or using quotes.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Please do not plagerize
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment: Annotations pg. 1 of 2

are you talking to me?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Look, more plagiarism.

Quick leave him a bad rep for not linking his source or using quotes.

No actually, the source is cited within the post as being Article 10 of the Constitution. But good try. Just because you enlarge part of a post doesn't mean the rest isn't there.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

No actually, the source is cited within the post as being Article 10 of the Constitution. But good try. Just because you enlarge part of a post doesn't mean the rest isn't there.

I didn't enlarge anything. Look at the original post.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I didn't enlarge anything. Look at the original post.

Then learn to read the fine print and I'll just have to learn how to read

[motivez]

Speaking of the fine print

This looks like a source to me:

Supreme Court of the United States
UNITED STATES
v.
DARBY.
No. 82.
Argued Dec. 19, 20, 1940.
Decided Feb. 3, 1941.
As Amended Feb. 17, 1941.
312 U.S. 657, 61 S.Ct. 451
U.S. 1941.

[Ardentfrost]

I call myself small 'l' simply because I don't think the LP is ready to run the nation. I agree with them on most things, but am not above supporting a good republican or democratic candidate (good by my philosophy... for instance, a true conservative republican or an economically-conscious democrat). I certainly don't think the LP has all the answers or methods needed to do what they're trying. I'll support non-crazy LP candidates everytime

Unlike lew, I'm for mostly open borders (cautiously open I guess)

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by motivez

Speaking of the fine print

This looks like a source to me:

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

are you talking to me?

Yes I was talking to you, your rep has been fixed...

[nbiggershaft]

No offense but this seems kinda dumb. Assuming it started with Libertarians being big L. At some point people broke off and said, those Libertarians are quacks, lets make the L lowercase, so we can distinquish ourselves. Make a new party if you want to seperate.


btw I'm no longer an independent, I'm gonna be an indepEndent who no longer pays taxes to Missouri, because he lives in missouri.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'. The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers

From the beginning and for many years the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end

Whatever doubts may have arisen of the soundness of that conclusion they have been put at rest by the decisions under the Sherman Act and the National Labor Relations Act which we have cited

The Tenth Amendment does not deprive the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.

Supreme Court of the United States
UNITED STATES
v.
DARBY.
No. 82.
Argued Dec. 19, 20, 1940.
Decided Feb. 3, 1941.
As Amended Feb. 17, 1941.
312 U.S. 657, 61 S.Ct. 451
U.S. 1941.

A decision from a very conservative court, many members who shot down parts of FDR's new deal

The debate has been over for decades, let it go

That was a horrible case decision.


"Debate has been over for decades, let it go" - so I guess you were against freeing the slaves, since it had been an established fact of life for decades? That line of reasoning is retarded. A court is not infallible. Just because that horrible decision expanded the powers of Congress doesn't mean that we shouldn't be fighting it back and seeking to return to limited constitutional government.

[lew]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

No offense but this seems kinda dumb. Assuming it started with Libertarians being big L. At some point people broke off and said, those Libertarians are quacks, lets make the L lowercase, so we can distinquish ourselves. Make a new party if you want to seperate.


btw I'm no longer an independent, I'm gonna be an indepEndent who no longer pays taxes to Missouri, because he lives in missouri.

It actually started with Classical Liberals. It then went to the Democratic Republican Party and Anti-Federalists.

In this century, it started with the Old Right. These people then joined hands with the Left post WWII. From the foundation of various idealogies came forth libertarianism. After these people became sick of both the Republicans and the Democrats, the LP was born. Most libertarians jumped on board. Then in the 90s however, some libertarians migrated away from the LP. Now we are in the state we are today.

Small "l" libertarians are not partisan. They'll vote for whoever supports constitutional law, regardless of political party. More often than not though, that means "throwing your vote away" to Libertarian, Constitution, or other third party candidates.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

That was a horrible case decision.


"Debate has been over for decades, let it go" - so I guess you were against freeing the slaves, since it had been an established fact of life for decades? That line of reasoning is retarded. A court is not infallible. Just because that horrible decision expanded the powers of Congress doesn't mean that we shouldn't be fighting it back and seeking to return to limited constitutional government.

it was not an established fact of life, slavery split the union

Darby is was not some breakthrough case, it was merely restating what the courts already believed, its one of the longest precedents in US history and remains unchallenged

NYTimes v Sullivan could be overturned too, and the first amendment could be viewed in a radically different light, but it's not going to happen, its not realistic

[TheScatman]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

No offense but this seems kinda dumb. Assuming it started with Libertarians being big L. At some point people broke off and said, those Libertarians are quacks, lets make the L lowercase, so we can distinquish ourselves. Make a new party if you want to seperate.


btw I'm no longer an independent, I'm gonna be an indepEndent who no longer pays taxes to Missouri, because he lives in missouri.

the capital letter always makes a distinction, for example a small r - republican is one who believes in a republican form of government, big R is the party, etc.

[kinggovernor]

I consider myself a "l" I want smaller government but I do not want the extreme measures that "L" take

[DosEquis]

What are the libertarians like bill maher, a self proclaimed libertarian?

He wants open borders, legalized drugs, legalized prostitutes, but on the other end he don't like guns and is for national healthcare.

Is he more of a "liberaltarian"?

[lew]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

What are the libertarians like bill maher, a self proclaimed libertarian?

He wants open borders, legalized drugs, legalized prostitutes, but on the other end he don't like guns and is for national healthcare.

Is he more of a "liberaltarian"?

Yes.

Even though Maher describes himself as a libertarian, a lot of libertarians disagree.

His stances on guns, healthcare, the environment, PETA, etc are at complete odds with libertarianism.