April 29, 2013 at 4:29 am #20667joshuaMember
First, Dr. Gutzman and Dr. McClanahan, thank you for teaching this course. You did a excellent job, and i enjoyed it very much.
Dr. McClanahan, in the last lecture you said (paraphrasing) I don’t know what we can do about it, (referencing to the usurpation of presidential powers I believe, and if I am mistaken I apologize) but I am sure you both have ideas of what we can do.
Do we argue the original intent of the Constitution when it furthers our argument, and point out a better way at other times? What I mean is, while I would surely be happier if the State did follow the original intent of the document, we know that a document cannot keep political power in check, when the political power is left to check itself. So do we fight to “get back” to the original intent, or do we fight another fight, but use the original intent as a weapon? For a New Liberty?
Again, thank you both so much for a fun yet very educational study. Your passion for the subject shined through the course. I hope that if Liberty Classroom decides to do a course on the Revolution both of you will consider being a part of it. (Nothing against Dr. Woods doing it also!)April 29, 2013 at 10:02 pm #20668swalsh81Member
What we do right now is continue to educate. There arent enough of “us” at the moment to gain a majority/supermajority in the house and senate to roll back the size of government.
There are 2 sides of this, one says that, were we to somehow basically abolish the great majority of government, once people got over the initial shock and the market was able to take over, the public in general would relish their new found liberty. The other side says to roll back the size of government because it would be more within the “Overton window” (that which is political feasible).
The proponents of the former argue that that is the more consistent argument with libertarianism and that slow steps is merely giving some vindication to the state. Which is the better way? I dont know.
But I will say this: Either rights are absolute or they are not. Either government (monopoly of force) is inherently anti-natural rights or it isnt. In the end, the scope of government and the meaningfulness and absoluteness of natural rights goes beyond the scope of any constitution written or otherwise. Why do I emphasize this? if people understand that the limits placed on government by the Constitution are simply a written limit on the scope of government based on an understanding of natural rights that cannot be granted by government but were to be protected by government, then “we” would not need to so much cause the government to be limited but it would be demanded by the general public.
But if people begin to understand that rights are rights (and I am talking about negative rights) then, I think, whether or not it is a push for constitution-esque or a push “For a New Liberty”, one way or another, liberty will be demanded by the public, not just the few that do now.
Note to future commentors, I am not pushing the gradual or the all at once approach, my point is that we need to educate the masses.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.