Posted on 05/03/2006 2:49:08 PM PDT by ghostmonkey
How do they do that, sneak in and switch docs?
"Libertarianism says that all laws against "consensual" crimes are unconstitutional, but the constitution doesn't say that at all.
That's irrational and false. The Constitution says what it does and is not a libertarian document.
Hey, it's a "living document."
There is no polarity of right. Rights just are. There is the right to life, the sovereignty of will, and property right. The term applies to those things that can not be legitimately infringed upon by another. The moral code is what prohibits the infringement. In libertarian law, the moral code is transfered into the legal code.
The Constituiton is not a "living documenet". Living documents exist only in the mind of the con srtist.
The founding fathers tried that for a few years. Made much wiser by the experience, they roundly rejected it [confederation] in favor of the current Constitution.
Yep, and the current Constitution is overwhelmingly supported by the libertarians on this forum, and by and large ignored by partisans of other political parties; -- just as their parties dictate.
This may come as a disheartening blow to some, but the truth is that Jefferson, Adams, Madison et al were much wiser than the average libertarian posting at FR.
Funny how much FR's libertarians use quotes from the Founders to illustrate libertarian principles though, isn't it? -- Could it be that many of those men were 'libertarian', -- before the word was invented?
Bet on it.
Libertarians aren't liberals. Libertarians aren't constitutionalists either.
A Constitutionalist would argue that Congress could legislate according to the powers explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. A libertarian would argue the same.
Hmmm, where did our friend ghostmonkey go, once we started posting philosophical criticism of the Lakoff map?
I find it interesting how the Lakoff map breaks up the major components of the GOP coalition, while it coalesces the all centrists under a center-left "moral order"-"moral rules" coalition. This is deliberate, a design on the part of Lakoff to frame progressive politics on a Richard Rorty model of "common values". E.g. "We" all agree on the need for national health care, so "we" will put it in place, never mind the rights it violates or what some old piece of paper says.
This is quite opposed to the relationship between man and the state proposed by conservatism, libertarianism, and constitutionalism.
Yes, libertarians see protectected rights in the Constitution, not enumerated. In reality, the Constitution reserves powers to the state to protect all rights not enumerated.
Actually, libertarians would take issue with the enumerated power of congress to establish post offices which has nothing to do with protecting them from any violation of their "negative rights."
I wonder if George Lakoff regards the contracts he signed with his literary agent and publisher as a "living document"?
[I did a bit of research, and I found why this might be the case. Libertarianism is actually in the same political system as Liberalism.]
Agreed. They just like their illegal drugs more. They are drug pushing liberals near as I can tell.
Conservatives also see unenumerated rights in the Constitution, just not the right to abortion, whores and sodomy.
Ping!
Yes, to that I would add that most libertarians and constitutionalists believe Congress may not delegate its powers to the executive branch, such as what happens in our current regulatory state.
No they would not. The Constitution is not a libertarian document. It is the document which defines and empowers the US govm't. It says what it says.
Now if you're refering to judging that document on libertarian grounds alone, you'd be correct. A postal service is not a legitimate power of govm't under libertarian theory. It is properly private enterprise. The reality is though, that any such discussion is of no legal validity.
"which has nothing to do with protecting them from any violation of their "negative rights."
Rights don't have polarity, see #124.
Close. The constitution enumerates powers for the government.
Some conservatives (but no libertarians I know) will claim the states have powers beyond those enumerated in the US constitution. The 14th ammendment leaves those wanting greater power for the states without a legal basis except the commerce clause (putting them in a camp with FDR and all the other libs).
I'd be willing to bet no Freeper will support the government enforcing the no sodomy rule in their bedrooms. (sodomy covers a lot of things).
I should note that the only legitimate power of govm't is to protect rights in libertarian theory.
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.