Why I'm not a Libertarian

That's just wacko Sovereign Citizen mumbo jumbo with no connection to reality.

No, it is an analysis of specific statutory constructions which were invoked by the Chief Justice in his actual ruling. As in he pointed to specific words and said "read that," so I did a really radical thing and - OMG - actually read them.

Nowhere in the specified statutes is sovereign citizenship mentioned, and in fact the only thing discussed is the applicability of the law, which is it's literal connection to reality.

LOL, first you say: We should have individual rights and responsibilities, but for decades now we have had group or "corporate" status.

then you say: Paying attention to minutia is not the same as looking to Original Intent.

What you don't see (because you're not even trying), is that this "minutia" is HOW original intent has been perverted. It's HOW "individual rights and responsibilities" have been perverted into "group or "corporate" status."

And don't piss and moan that it sounds like legal mumbo jumbo from lawyers - who the hell do you think wrote this crap in the first place?

You want to fix a problem, you have to go where the problem is. You want to just wave your arms and drink beer, fine - just don't get in the way of people who are actually working on the real problem,

Just lurking as usual and have a few observations:

Despite some valid points made by both sides of this debate, it's really only one side that has devolved to truly vicious name-calling:

"Fool" (posted by one individual 7 times or more)
"Sod off, troll" (posted in variants at least 5 times)
"What a child you are."
"Apparently you're an idiot..."
"Shove it out your ass."

And on the other side: "Losertarians."

I admit to having some "libertarian" leanings, but since "libertarians" feel so strongly about what that word means depending on who is being addressed, I prefer saying "as an American, I have right to not be regulated into slavery."

We can debate federalism all day long, but if the federal government does not adhere to this part of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

...Then libertarians (big L or small l) are not being wholly truthful. Drugs, like alcohol and tobacco sales, can be a matter relegated to the states, but the truly serious life and death issues, like federal border security, abortion and marriage are matters that the federal government can and MUST have a hand in.

Read that again where the Preamble states that We the People of the United States MUST "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

For goodness' sake, the Republican Party was founded in part to demolish polygamy and slavery and secure those God-given Blessings(not government given)! And I would posit that counterfeit marriage and government-sanctioned murder of pre-born children are certainly worse that polygamy and slavery.

If a libertarian feels so strongly that the federal government should have no say in these issues and just pass them off to individual states, then they are not adhering to the history of the National Republican Party. Then again, the Republican Party is not adhering to its own history.

The GOP is fragmented and dying, and this libertarian-conservative debate just underscores that.

"No, it is an analysis of specific statutory constructions which were invoked by the Chief Justice in his actual ruling."

The 14th doesn't make everyone into corporations. It's a ridculous notion promoted by "sovereign citizen" wackos. There's no "statutory construction" that's going to make it say that.

"I take it then that you believe that morality has no part in any laws, right?"

A morality that recognizes that my rights end where they infringe on yours, yes. That is a necessary part of the law, which exists to protect our rights.

A morality about who you can sleep with, what god you worship, what you can drink or eat, because my god says so, no. That would not be consistent with a free society, which is what the founders were trying to establish.

That they believed only a moral people could maintain a free society is one thing. Of course that's true. But legislating personal choices to conform with your particular flavor of religious authority is another.

A people can be moral without laws telling them how to do it. They are different concepts. Not everything should be subject to law. They understood that distinction. It seems to be pretty rare these days.

A morality that recognizes that my rights end where they infringe on yours, yes. That is a necessary part of the law, which exists to protect our rights.

Sounds good until you realize that the Founders realized and stated quite clearly that our rights come from a Sovereign Christian God. They recognized his sovereignty at the State Level by passing and supporting laws against Sodomy, and clearly, if they had known that their Progeny would be supporting Buggery, redefining Marriage to include perverts or Homosexuals and murdering their unborn children, they would have put Amendments in the Constitution to guard against such excesses.

Thank you! You “get it”.

I've always been drawn to libertarianism all my life, but I could never pull the trigger because they always end up in some amoral, absolutists, anarchist, place I couldn't go. Our Founders were Christians with guns and that's the way they designed the countries laws. Libertarians always end up denying the Christian part. If taking drugs destroys your life, people cared enough to figure that destroys their citizens. If we want to control who comes in the country, we need a border or we will end up like the hell hole they are escaping. Can anyone really believe our founders thought we should be able to abort God's gift to women because they might get stretch marks ? Should we not mingle with the world's politics for future generational security? I understand all the arguments pro and con, but to leave critical thinking out in order to keep some pure principle denies the real world experience.

It's sort of scary to think they would see a person laying in the street, in their own vomit, with a needle in their arm, and walk by muttering, He's on his own and whatever doesn't affect me is on his head". After watching libertarians for over 50 years, it seems that's where they always aim and it always ends up towards the anarchy end of the scale with no "brothers keeper" feel to it. Just as we see right now, Obama is ignoring the plight of almost everyone around the globe, what he is setting up for our kids is a world drowning in evil set against America's existence. It angers the libertarians to say "Obama is acting libertarian in world affairs", but that is exactly what they prescribe. In two or 3 years, we will be facing a reunited Soviet Union with nukes aimed at us, our children dead or in jail for what they've done on drugs, and a country with no border that looks more like Honduras than Honduras. We could use a libertarian as Treasury Secretary, but for little else. Our Founders told us that the Constitution is only good for a religious, moral people, because they knew the human heart was evil and needed regulation, if not by God, by law. As we fall further from God, we have more and more law. Freedom is a concept no one could conceive but our founders 250 years ago, and even today, using us as a template, it seems no one else can even emulate what they have seen here. I've often said we should go to another country and offer a Bible and a copy of our Constitution to follow our footsteps, but the character of an American Christian is almost inconceivable to a foreigner. They almost always opt for absolutism of some sort. If conservatives lose the Republican party, we will have sentenced ourselves to decades of pain for no reason. Libertarians have been split forever between the social issues of the Democrats and the economic issues of the Republicans. A "Rockefeller" Republican was basically a guy wanting a tax cut and lower spending, but leave me alone on social issues. It seems we were there for most of my life until the silent majority came in and the Gingrich revolution a little later. IMO, you can try to handle all the economic and social issues all you want, but if God isn't the center of the reason you do it, it will always fail. Put God first, and everything else will take care of itself. We have been a blessed nation for over 200 years, but I fear that is over. Born again Christians have been marginalized by hedonistic Dems and libertarian Repubs. There is a third way, the way of the Founders,....Freedom with God as our King. Without God, there can be no freedom.

The 14th doesn't make everyone into corporations. It's a ridculous notion promoted by "sovereign citizen" wackos. There's no "statutory construction" that's going to make it say that.

Yeah, there is, actually - a lot. And it's been analyzed from the Supreme Court down, starting with the Slaughterhouse Cases. And treating people as corporations is exactly what it does - because if it didn't, it would contradict the previous parts of the Constitution. Starting with how, exactly did Lincoln "free the slaves" from the federal White House, when slavery was State laws? Answer: he freed their "corporate" persons - but to do that he had to implicitly claim ownership of them. That latter concept was what was later codified in the 14th Amendment.

I think you just like saying "sovereign citizen wackos." The problem is that people who think they are "sovereign citizens" are combining two contradictory terms. The People of the original Constitution are sovereign, but "citizens" of the 14th Amendment US are not. So you shouldn't compound the mistake by using it in your own argument - it just makes you look confused as well.

"Sounds good until you realize that the Founders realized and stated quite clearly that our rights come from a Sovereign Christian God."

The issue isn't where they came from, although it's a mistake to think that the founders were all Christians. They can come from god, but that doesn't mean that it's ok to write your religious beliefs into law. That is most certainly not what they were implying. That is totally contrary to the whole notion of individual freedom, which is the principal upon which they were founding a government.

"Yeah, there is, actually - a lot. And it's been analyzed from the Supreme Court down, starting with the Slaughterhouse Cases..."

And 9/11 Truthers have detailed analyses for their wacko beliefs too. It's still nonsense. Being able to come up with detailed justifications for something isn't enough to make it true.

"...but "citizens" of the 14th Amendment US are not..."

See? Crazy. The 14th didn't convert you to something else.

And 9/11 Truthers have detailed analyses for their wacko beliefs too. It's still nonsense. Being able to come up with detailed justifications for something isn't enough to make it true.

And what do you provide as rebuttal - bumper-sticker insults? Oh yeah, that's really compelling.

See? Crazy. The 14th didn't convert you to something else.

See? Tediously stupid. What the actual legal corporate conversion mechanism of the 14th is, is to allow the government to presume corporate status against people unless it is refuted, corporate status being defined as officers, agents, owners of a corporate entity or employees of the government.

You're not even in the conversation. Go get your spray paint and write something on a wall, it's more your speed.

The issue isn't where they came from, although it's a mistake to think that the founders were all Christians. They can come from god, but that doesn't mean that it's ok to write your religious beliefs into law. That is most certainly not what they were implying. That is totally contrary to the whole notion of individual freedom, which is the principal upon which they were founding a government.

The founders made it clear the form of Government they built was meant for a Christian nation only.

The foundation of their world was Christianity. And yes, they were all Christians.

Their worldview was Christianity and it permeated and formed the basis of the form of Government they created, a Democratic Republic.

They made it clear that if this nation walked away from God, this nation would fall.

Don't confuse the idea of Religious sects, i.e. Methodists vs. Luthrens, vs. Catholics with the idea of writing religious beliefs into law.

Don't confuse the idea of writing religious ceremony into law with the Moral foundation that undergirds all of our laws until recently. That Moral foundation came from their Christianity.

Their focus was not a freedom from religion, but a freedom of religion where each man could choose the manner of serving God, but with a firm foundation built upon the morals provided and proscribed by Christianity.

This agreement on the morals provided by Christianity is what kept this nation strong until the 60's when this fake idea that morality was not meant to be legislated by the founders.

Pure and simple horse hockey.