Posted on 07/31/2002 5:20:31 AM PDT by fporretto
Each abridgement of liberty has been used to justify further ones. Scholars of political systems have noted this repeatedly. The lesson is not lost on those whose agenda is total power. They perpetually strain to wedge the camel's nose into the tent, and not for the nose's sake.
Many a fine person will concede to you that "liberty is all very well in theory," follow that up with "but," and go on from there to tabulate aspects of life that, in his opinion, the voluntary actions of responsible persons interacting in freedom could never cope with. Oftentimes, free men and free markets have coped with his objections in the recent past, whether he knows it or not. You could point this out to him, provide references and footnotes, and still not overcome his resistance, for it does not depend on the specifics he cited.
His reluctance to embrace freedom is frequently based on fear, the power-monger's best friend.
Fantasist Robert Anton Wilson has written: "The State is based on threat." And so it is. After all, the State, no matter how structured, is a parasitic creature. It seizes our wealth and constrains our freedom, gives vague promises of performance in return, and then as often as not fails to deliver. No self-respecting people would tolerate such an institution if it did not regard the alternatives as worse.
The alternatives are seldom discussed in objective, unemotional terms. Sometimes they are worse, by my assessment, but why should you accept my word for it?
Let it be. The typical American, when he opts for State action over freedom, isn't acting on reasoned conviction, but on fear of a negative result. Sometimes the fear, which is frequently backed by a visceral revulsion, is so strong that no amount of counterevidence can dissolve it, including the abject failure of State action.
We've had a number of recent examples of this. To name only two prominent ones:
In either of the above cases, could we but take away the fear factor, there would be essentially no argument remaining.
Fear, like pain, can be useful. When it engenders caution, it can prolong life and preserve health. Conservatives in particular appreciate the value of caution. The conservative mindset is innately opposed to radical, destabilizing change, and history has proved such opposition to be wise.
However, a fear that nothing can dispel is a pure detriment to him who suffers it.
Generally, the antidote to fear is knowledge: logically sound arguments grounded in unshakable postulates and well buttressed by practical experience. Once one knows what brings a particular undesirable condition about, one has a chance of changing or averting it. The great challenge is to overcome fears so intense that they preclude a rational examination of the thing feared.
Where mainstream conservatives and libertarians part company is along the disjunction of their fears. The conservative tends to fear that, without State involvement in various social matters, the country and its norms would suffer unacceptably. Areas where such a fear applies include drug use, abortion, international trade, immigration, cultural matters, sexual behavior, and public deportment. The libertarian tends to fear the consequences of State involvement more greatly. He argues to the conservative that non-coercive ways of curbing the things he dislikes, ways that are free of statist hazards, should be investigated first, before turning to the police.
I call myself a libertarian, but I can't discount conservative fears in all cases -- especially where the libertarian approach to some social ill involves a major change to established ways. Radical transformations of society don't have a rosy history.
Yet conservatives, too, could be more realistic, and could show more confidence in the ideals they strive to defend. As Thomas Sowell has written in discussing the War On Drugs, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damned fool about it."
The past two decades, starting roughly with Ronald Reagan's ascent to national prominence, have laid the foundations for an enduring coalition between freedom-oriented libertarian thinkers and virtue-and-stability-oriented conservative thinkers. Each side needs to learn greater confidence in the other, if we are to establish the serious exchange of ideas and reservations, free of invective and dismissive rhetoric, as an ongoing process. Such confidence must include sufficient humility to allow for respect for the other side's fears -- for an unshakable confidence in one's own rightness is nearly always misplaced. There is little to learn from those who agree with you, whereas much may be learned from those who disagree.
Which one of us is dreaming and which is facing reality? I don't dream of a "new" party? I work hard to reform the old one which, whether you like it or not, is the only one with a chance to bring back Constitutional values short of a major societal upheaval or revolution.
I'm not a Libertarian. I'm a Liberal. The federal government unbeknowst to many can in fact collect taxes on, but not regulate, intrastate commerce. The US Constitution specifically gives the US Government the power to directly tax. Originally all taxes had to be at one set rate for the given tax so no one would pay more than anyone else. That is why the 16th amendment was specifically required to make the income tax progressive. You can now have progressive federal sales taxes, etc as well.
You still haven't justified your argument. Taxation != regulation. One is allowed intrastate specifically and the other not. If you are willing to violate the US Constitution to make you feel good then you are a worthless individual who has no more ethics than the Kennedys, Feinsteins and Clintons out there.
A distinction without much of a difference.
The federal government unbeknowst to many can in fact collect taxes on, but not regulate, intrastate commerce.
The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:(1) Many of the drugs included within this title have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.
(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.
(3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because--
(A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,
(B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and
(C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.
(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.
(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.
"...commerce among the states is not a technical legal conception, but a practical one, drawn from the course of business." Mr. Justice Holmes, Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375, 398 , 25 S.Ct. 276, 280.
Ignorance is the bread and butter of libertarianism and liberalism.
You have just shown how stupid you are by admitting that you cannot tell the difference between a leftist and a Liberal. Conservatism is Liberalism without any principles. Simply put, the biggest difference is that there are no political principles Conservatives will fight for.
It is the government's burden to make its case as to why something is within its jurisidiction, not for others why it isn't. Only a statist scumbag thinks along the lines you do.
That's easy. Someone too cowardly and dishonest to admit being a leftist will refer to himself as a "Liberal" or "Progressive."
It is the government's burden to make its case as to why something is within its jurisidiction
Again, easily done:
The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:(1) Many of the drugs included within this title have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.
(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.
(3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because--
(A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,
(B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and
(C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.
(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.
(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.
I'm a Liberal because I adhere to the majority of Locke's doctrines.
(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate
Rubbish. In every single case the government has the burden to prove the source of its evidence is legitimate and that items deemed contraband are in fact within its jurisidiction. How would you like to be on trial and the government taking the attitude that "since it is impossible to tell what firearm committed the crime because someone edged off the grooves inside the barrel (thus totally f@#$ing the ballistics test) we must assume that we no longer need the murder weapon to prove Roscoe's guilt as any grooveless gun of the same calibre would suffice to be the murder weapon since we also think he used gloves to hide his fingerprints." You'd be pretty damn pissed if the judge said that the government wasn't burdened to actually prove its case against you, that you had to prove yours against the government. Congradulations, you've been advocating guilty-until-proven-innocent now for a while. If it is a crime locally, let the state take care of it. Oh that's right, you don't believe states should even exist.
False
"Whosoever, therefore, out of a state of Nature unite into a community, must be understood to give up all the power necessary to the ends for which they unite into society to the majority of the community, unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than the majority. And this is done by barely agreeing to unite into one political society, which is all the compact that is, or needs be, between the individuals that enter into or make up a commonwealth. And thus, that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of majority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world." -- John Locke
In every single case the government has the burden to prove the source of its evidence is legitimate and that items deemed contraband are in fact within its jurisidiction.
False.
The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:(1) Many of the drugs included within this title have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.
(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.
(3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because--
(A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,
(B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and
(C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.
(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.
(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.
Ignorance and dishonesty are the bread and butter of Liberalism and Libertarianism.
You are taking Locke out of context. He is not saying that people give up their freedoms to government for it to dispense as it sees fit, but in accordance with liberal philosophical views they are giving up their natural rights for civil rights (the civilized equivalents). Like refining a diamond so that it has more value. The Lockean liberal society is not one where the government has unlimited power, far from it. It is a society where freedom is only limited so as to promote freedom for the whole. That is why no rights are absolute; any right taken to its utter extreme violates the rights of all. Therefore the right to security cannot come at the expense of the right to privacy in one's home or ownership of one's belongings. There is no classical liberal justification for the WOD, only a pseudo-religious one promulgated out of fear by "conservatives."
I'm quoting him exactly. Beats blowing smoke.
Or you can invent positions to attribute to them and then run away when asked to support your contentions.
I'll stick with quoting, you can stick with running.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.