Replies

Licensing is indeed a bad idea, in general, as it can, [and has] lead to restraints on a mans ability to trade, and actual "deprivation of life or liberty", as the excerpt says.

-- But -- My point all along has been to emphasize that rational American libertarians agree with the principles of our Constitution, and that ALL laws made in strict accordance with those principles are valid.

-- It is not necessary to approve of such laws, but there can be no question that "We the People" have the valid Constitutional power to legislate on such matters.

If you live in America & refuse to support the principles of our Constitution, then you cannot truly call yourself an rational libertarian, imho.
Get it?
102

If such matters are to regulate commerce, license enterprises engaged in trade between states, or to prescribe the form, size, quality, measure, labeling, scheduling of such trade; and to impose civil penalties for violation of such regulations, such as fines or loss of licenses, then my answer is dependent on what is meant by "valid."

Most of us accept the standard English definition.

If "valid" implies a Constitutional power to do such by "We the People," then I agree.
If "valid" implies a moral right, I disagree.

Nothing in our Constitution gives government 'moral rights' powers.

The libertarian position has been for at least the past 50 years, that no government should have such a moral right.

So who's arguing? Rational libertarians should agree, just as I noted at #102.

If you advocate that government does have such a moral right, then I'm right, you are not a libertarian.

As usual, you're wrong, and your silly straw man attempt to bash me has fallen apart. --
-- Whatta pitiful display of pique.

Using the word "rational" in a manner that implies an opposite view is irrational in an exchange of differences not specifically having to do with rationality, is an indirect form of an ad hominem argument or what is often called The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy , and is thereby irrational in its use and by its user. Now if rationality is the subject of the discussion, then an argument must be presented to demonstrate its appropriate application.

Every time you have used the word you demonstrated your own lack of rational thinking, and reduce the intellectual level of discussion to childish name calling.

Come on, anyone who provides a link to that excellent web page on the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles" has got to be able to rise above such squalor.

As for the rest of your reply, to much redundancy, of that which there is no disagreement, incorrectly implying disagreement and where there is a disagreement to much argumentum ad nauseam. Then suddenly you have a conclusion pop out of know where, not supported by any argument (ie explanation) by you in the text. What's left is na, I'm right and you are wrong. UH UH, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS WRONG. Nope, I know better therefor I'm right. YEA, SURE, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW AS MUCH AS ME. Oh yea, well my idea is ... ... ...