The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | May 13, 2006 | Murray N. Rothbard

[Publius Valerius]

However, to attribute any supposed expansion of federal power to directly elected senators is more than a stretch.

I don't think this statement stands up to historical review. The ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 immediately and permanently altered the balance of power between the states and the federal government. Almost immediately after the passage of the amendment, there was a rapid growth in the power of the national government, especially at the expense of the powers of the states.

While the Founders were careful to guard against the “excesses of democracy, ” the Seventeenth Amendment embodied a notion that the cure for the ills of democracy was more democracy. Clearly, then, the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment was a direct assault on Our Federalism, because, as the Founders noted, the idea of a state having a direct voice in the national government was a key check to the power of the national government. Without the careful check in place, the national government began to legislate in areas traditionally only available to the states.

For instance, following the adoption of the amendment in 1913, Congress quickly passed the Child Labor Act of 1916 and the Child Labor Tax Act of 1919. While this legislation might have been meritorious, such legislation was always understood to be beyond the power of the national government, and its passage was a direct assault on the states as states.

Although the New Deal legislation was probably the high-water mark on the assault on the states by the national government, the clear trend following the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment was that Congress was given an essentially blank check to legislate according to any perceived problem without any consideration of the states as separate entities.

This problem remains today in a variety of areas, but perhaps most conspicuous is Congress’s increasing legislation in criminal law, a sphere that historically has always been left to the states. Indeed, even following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, in which Congress was given power to enforce equal protection and due process requirements, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cruikshank still held that Congress had no power to make general criminal law, striking down an indictment against several whites accused of killing a group of black men.

Despite recent trends by the Rehnquist Court to judicially impose requirements of federalism, the judiciary was not intended by the Founders to act as a check on the power of the national government vis-à-vis the states, and the weakness in attempting to extend the power of the judiciary that far becomes clear: the court simply cannot declare the vast number of laws intruding on the powers of the states unconstitutional and still retain any aura of legitimacy. In a nominally republican society, an unelected judiciary simply cannot, on an extended basis, continue to invalidate legislation passed by a democratically elected Congress; thus, the check on the power of the national government must come from the legislature itself. The Seventeenth Amendment removed this check. AS to your comment about the Senate not necessarily being composed of the wealthy any powerful, I note only that it wasn't called "the millionaire's club" for no reason.

[Publius Valerius]

I don't think that was the purpose of the 14th Amendment. A better reading, in my view, was that it was to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

An exhaustive and rather brilliant study of the Amendment was done by Raoul Berger in his wonderful text, Government By Judiciary. It is generously available online.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/HTML.php?recordID=0003

[Publius Valerius]

Well, have to go for now. See you around, I'm sure.

[Lucky Dog]

A very erudite exposition. Thank you.

You make your point very well. I will alter my position in accordance with your excellently reasoned argument.

[budwiesest]

Legalization of recreational drug use is a de facto “encouragement,” rather than “discouragement” of non-productive, resource draining citizen activity.

Resource draining as in 'can't grow your own'? (I know, productivity draining. Yet, modern music would not exist as we know it, were it not for some 'mind altering' substances)

The level of communitarianist tyranny at all levels (got a child in a car seat backwards, upsidedown, is your gun unloaded and locked in your trunk, please pull into the un-warranted DUI check-point, etc.) is enough to make a true American wanna puke.

As kids, we didn't even wear seatbelts, my dad might have had a loaded shotgun in the trunk and driven on a few beers on the way home. We were Americans. By today's standards, we'd be next to Bonnie and Clyde, for Christ's sake.

Carried to the extreme (and I believe they're headed that way) real patriots/conservatives would vote for anarchy over a continuation of the 'liberty' espoused by the PC infested parties of today.

It'll be a sad day when a majority of Americans come to say: "I didn't leave my country, my country left me."

PS, as a taxpayer these excesses are becoming a burden I find less justifiable in the face of reality, as I refuse to live life in their 'dream' world. Give me reality, or give me death. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

[DugwayDuke]

"Immigrants can come here all they want. They can want socialism all they want--it's the government's job to say "too bad.""

So the libertarian government gets to decide what the people get? I've never heard of a big government libertarian.

[Lucky Dog]

Legalization of recreational drug use is a de facto “encouragement,” rather than “discouragement” of non-productive, resource draining citizen activity.

Resource draining as in 'can't grow your own'? (I know, productivity draining. Yet, modern music would not exist as we know it, were it not for some 'mind altering' substances)

Let me postulate a hypothetical and have you provide a response.

Assume a war has occurred with an implacable enemy who has successfully perpetrated severe, population depleting attacks on the US. The US won, albeit at a terrible price in terms of casualties and lost infrastructure. Although at peace technically, the US, no longer a super power, faces potential threats from several totalitarian states and the economy is severely crippled. Because of the terrible conditions, a significant portion of the population chooses to escape through hallucinogens and narcotics. Without this portion of the population contributing, the US is no longer able to produce enough goods and services to sustain the remaining population and provide military equipment. What is your solution (assuming you are among the remaining productive portion of the population)?

The level of communitarianist tyranny at all levels (got a child in a car seat backwards, upsidedown, is your gun unloaded and locked in your trunk, please pull into the un-warranted DUI check-point, etc.) is enough to make a true American wanna puke.

More questions for you… Is a child a citizen? Are not all citizens entitled to the full protection of the law from those who threaten their lives?

As kids, we didn't even wear seatbelts, my dad might have had a loaded shotgun in the trunk and driven on a few beers on the way home. We were Americans. By today's standards, we'd be next to Bonnie and Clyde, for Christ's sake.

Do you know the percentage of children killed today in auto accidents versus “when we were kids?” Do you know the percentage of innocent people killed today by drunk drivers versus the number killed in the day when your Dad drove on a few beers? How would you react if your child or spouse were the fatality created by a drunk driver?

Carried to the extreme (and I believe they're headed that way) real patriots/conservatives would vote for anarchy over a continuation of the 'liberty' espoused by the PC infested parties of today.

You may be correct, but ultimately the business of any society’s legal system has always been about achieving a balance between the competing values of the society it exists to serve. While you and I may prefer to see the balance more toward the individual rights and liberties side of the scale, we can only have our way through the ballot box.

It'll be a sad day when a majority of Americans come to say: "I didn't leave my country, my country left me."

As long as it is legal for every citizen to vote, run for office and voter fraud is illegal, if your country leaves you, it is your fault.

PS, as a taxpayer these excesses are becoming a burden I find less justifiable in the face of reality, as I refuse to live life in their 'dream' world. Give me reality, or give me death. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

You have reality. Do you vote in every election? Are you active in the political party of your choice? Do you run for office at any level? Do you, or have you, served in the armed forces? Do you communicate with your elected representatives? Do you write letters to the editor of your local newspapers?

[Marxbites]

I would agree with all you said except you are arguing about your own wrong supposition. You totally misunderstood it.

The "State" referes to the Federal Gubmint. Not the several states at all.

BTW - in case you are unaware, the Founding Fathers were WAY more libertarian than either Hamiltonian/Whig/Federalists or post Jefferson thinking collectivist Demos. That is, neither of today's parties would please the Founders at all.

I consider myself a small govt Jeffersonian Republican, barely able to hold his nose any longer on our post-Newt crop of Rep statists gone afoul of RWR's visions.

And - btw - the pre-Goldwater Reps were almost as progressive as FDR, including Ike and Nixon.

My man Ronnie finally got back us to AU H2O/von Hayek based limited govt ideas.

Watch this informative video please:
http://mises.org:88/Sophocleus

[Marxbites]

Way to go!

I'd missed your rebuttal. Everything you said is dead nutz on.

That so and so here can't see the difference between judicial fiat, or ignoring unconstitutional legislation, and the legal amendment process, parallels well with the fact that the majority of American adults today can't name all three branches of our Govt.

Absolutely pathetic.

The ICC, Fed'l Reserve Act, Income taxation, SS, graduated non-general taxation, welfare, medicare, ALL - are either resultant from judicial fiat or the court letting Congress get away with that which was never constitutional to begin with.

What's "general" about welfare going to specific interests?

Where's the Equal Protection in both the above and in graduated taxation?

Where's the original Commerce clause, who's only purpose was in promoting trade and prohibiting tarrifs between the states? Now a sop to tax every- and anything Congress can dream up.

Go back to screwel, fool - (not you Durus - your precocious antagonizer)

[mrsmith]

"The "State" referes to the Federal Gubmint. Not the several states at all. "

"The State", as used in the article, refers to all government.

Sorry to disillusion you. Though since you didn't check before replying I doubt if you will now either- so you won't be disillusioned anyway.

It's not impossible to be a clear thinking libertarian, but one has to make the effort.

[budwiesest]

Because of the terrible conditions, a significant portion of the population chooses to escape through hallucinogens and narcotics.

Has this ever happened anywhere? Getting high is a luxury (not sure where it falls on the heirarchy of needs, but it certainly isn't down there with food and shelter).

the US is no longer able to produce enough goods and services to sustain the remaining population and provide military equipment.

Would the Federal Dept. of Education have suffered as well? Good, 'cause at the moment, drop-out rates are sufficiently high to question whether we'll have the people necessary to produce goods and services needed to sustain anything other than provide fodder for our overseas adventures.

Are not all citizens entitled to the full protection of the law from those who threaten their lives?

Directly, yes. Indirectly, no. Otherwise, where do you stop? ex.: The 80 year old woman who sued McDonalds for the hot coffee that produced third degree burns wanted over a million, she got less. Had it been shown that the drive-up window operator intended to cause harm, she'd have been entitled to the full amount.

How would you react if your child or spouse were the fatality created by a drunk driver?

I'd react emotionally like most. Then, I'd make certain the perp received the severest punishment allowed. But, I wouldn't invite the State to punish every driver on the road for an act for which they had no complicity.

the business of any society’s legal system has always been about achieving a balance between the competing values of the society it exists to serve.

And yet, there are limits as to how far a 'society' may go and they are ignored with impunity. Ignore the 2nd ammendment and get elected as being 'tough on crime'. Pass CFR, have the president sign it (hoping the US Supreme Court will nullify it) and they'll pat you on the back as a true election reformer. Never mind you just screwed the 1st ammendment, you'll smell like a rose in the rose garden (someday, if you get elected, that is).

As long as it is legal for every citizen to vote, run for office and voter fraud is illegal, if your country leaves you, it is your fault.

I'm sorry, we've voted overwhelmingly for things like prop 187 (denying benefits to illegals) and had the 'courts' nullify them. The mere existence of federal restrictions on guns and the BATFE are examples of absolute violations of the 2nd ammendment (if you take the view that the BOR apply only to the Fed) and yet, they still exist. Much the same way states must follow Roe v. Wade as they have been nuetered on the subject of abortion.

Yeah, the vote-thingie works real good. And I must be one of those Bush I thousand points of light. If I run out of candles, I can always burn my copy of the constitution.

[mrsmith]

I apologize for being short with you.

I read a third of the article hoping it would have something in it but it was just the same old lying libertarian propaganda.

[Marxbites]

No it isn't. I too was at first disappointed in the beginning paragraphs.

You should re-read it. I think it's support of Founding first principles now lost, and what they mean, will thrill you based on what I perceive from your replies - that you believe in liberty and a limited Govt that coerces no one but those who attack us, and whose sole reason for being was to protect our pre-existing rights, and those of our several states.

Give it a whirl, I'd be interested in your opinion please.

That tarrif video is pretty informative as well.

[Lucky Dog]

Let me postulate a hypothetical and have you provide a response.

Has this ever happened anywhere? …

Nice non-response... By definition, a “hypothetical” hasn’t happen. You completed avoided the question. Why not just answer the question directly? Would providing the obvious answer force you to admit something you are in cognitive dissonance over? Go ahead, answer it directly, if you have the intellectual integrity and intestinal fortitude.

Are not all citizens entitled to the full protection of the law from those who threaten their lives?

Directly, yes. Indirectly, no.

From your indirect response, it appears you would concede that child safety belt laws are ok, after all. These citizens are not mentally capable of making cogent decisions on the risk management implications of choosing to wear such devices themselves. Therefore, it seems that you agree that it is appropriate for the government to mandate that they be protected by the safest course until such time as they have the mental capacity to make fully informed decisions.

…where do you stop?

That issue is exactly the balance of rights and liberties that we elect legislators to enact laws to determine and take issues to court to get disputes resolved over. As I noted earlier, you and I may prefer to see the balance more toward the individual rights and liberties side of the scale, but we can only have our way through the ballot box.

How would you react if your child or spouse were the fatality created by a drunk driver?

I'd react emotionally like most. Then, I'd make certain the perp received the severest punishment allowed. But, I wouldn't invite the State to punish every driver on the road for an act for which they had no complicity.

By the logic of your response, we should not enforce any traffic laws until someone has been harmed. From this reasoning, it seems that you would prefer a driver kill someone speeding, than be punished for violating the speed limit. In theory, there is no difference between requiring a driver to observe the traffic laws concerning speed limits and in not driving drunk. Law enforcement is entitled to stop a speeding driver even though he or she has not yet killed anyone. Why should they not be entitled to stop a drunk driver before he or she has killed someone?

the business of any society’s legal system has always been about achieving a balance between the competing values of the society it exists to serve.

And yet, there are limits as to how far a 'society' may go and they are ignored with impunity. Ignore the 2nd ammendment and get elected as being 'tough on crime'. Pass CFR, have the president sign it (hoping the US Supreme Court will nullify it) and they'll pat you on the back as a true election reformer. Never mind you just screwed the 1st ammendment, you'll smell like a rose in the rose garden (someday, if you get elected, that is).

As I noted in my previous response to you, if you don’t like the balance, it is potentially within your power through the ballot box to change it, if you can convince enough of your fellow citizens to support your position.

As long as it is legal for every citizen to vote, run for office and voter fraud is illegal, if your country leaves you, it is your fault.

I'm sorry, we've voted overwhelmingly for things like prop 187 (denying benefits to illegals) and had the 'courts' nullify them. …

I noted a distinct lack of address the issue of running for office. If you don’t like the situation, get yourself elected and change it.

Yeah, the vote-thingie works real good. And I must be one of those Bush I thousand points of light. If I run out of candles, I can always burn my copy of the constitution.

I say again: Do you vote in every [includes all of the local primaries, school boards, etc.] election? Are you active in the political party of your choice? Do you run for office at any level? Do you, or have you, served in the armed forces? Do you communicate with your elected representatives? Do you write letters to the editor of your local newspapers?

You didn’t answer all of the questions. Why not?

Did you know that the US Constitution gives Congress the power to remove federal judges through impeachment? Did you know that it also gives Congress the power to limit even the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction not directly named in the Constitution? Did you know that Congress has the power to eliminate any federal court below the Supreme Court? Did you know that amendments do not have to start in Congress according to the Constitution?

As I noted before, if you don’t like the situation, convince enough of your fellow citizens, get yourself elected and change it.

I’ll be off line until late this afternoon… Sorry, have to work so I can pay my internet connection fees. I look forward to your direct responses.

[Marxbites]

I missed this I guess, cuz I already replied to the other. And you doubt wrong.

You make a point, the "state" as used refers to Govts generally, as well it should.

But just because we believe that the several states maintain all rights not specifically denied them in the constituion, like the prohibition of tarrifs between states (commerce clause), doesn't mean the several states individually don't demand the same scrutiny in checking their power as the states and citizens do the FedGov. I'm sure we'd agree.

However, if you really have read more than 3 paragraphs, you'd see the thrust of the article primarily deals with the ideas the spawned the British, French and American revolutions - ie LIBERTY, as opposed to the coercions of autocrats, bureaucrats and monarchs to be overthrown. One of our own rights I fear will never be exercised to re-limit our State.

Call me a Jeffersonian/Goldwater/Reagan republican.

The article supports the constitution 100%. So at this point I'm not really understanding what you are objecting to? But would like to know because I'm certainly as fallible as anyone is.

[Marxbites]

Did you know that the Delanos and Morgans made huge fortunes in the China clipper opium trades?

The progressives of both parties are the primary creators of leviathan, copying policies from the euro-collectivists, bent on "scientifically" managing and planning economies and societies, for our own good of course, nudge - nudge.

The only productive government activity there ever was, according to the constitution, is a Govt commited to adhering to the constituion that gave it life, and whose sole purpose was in protecting our shores, our property and our pre-existing natural & civil rights.

It just never did allow Congress to constitutionally create such as the ICC, the Fed'l Reserve, an income tax, SS, welfare, graduated taxes, bridges to nowhere and all other grandiose monuments to politicians at taxpayer expense. IE nothing Congress spends should have ever been spent that does not benefit all taxpayers equally, as a battleship would.

The several states were intended to be the individual testbeds of liberty, that only a limited Fedl Govt can foster. Giving citizens the ability to vote with their feet, rewarding the states that best treated their citizens and protected their rights. Such is the dilemma still inescapable today in publik edukation - no free choice, a totally unAmerican situation.

[Reily]

"...having hard core drugs be legalized.... "

I have never attended a libertarian meeting where the primary issue on the minds of the majority of the attendees was the 'right to be addled on drugs' !

As long as laws exist on the books that will give people the right to reach deep into my pockets (through taxes!) to ameliorate the 'consequences of the their stupidity' the libertarian party is unsupportable on economic grounds. Also their foreign policy arguments are great theory BUT totality impractical. Even we decided to be a 'hermit kingdom' trouble would still come looking for us. Even though we have great natural resources we still have to buy & sell things in the outside world. Again how rational a buyer & seller we choose to be, there are others who won't. The article makes a case for 'American libertarian ideology' but forgets that ideology is what makes libertarianism impractical. Ideology drives people to often make irrational choices about their life, look at socialism/communism & now Islamo-Fascism. These ideological forces are inherently evangelical and no matter how hard you try to leave them alone, they won't leave you alone !

[Lucky Dog]

Did you know that the Delanos and Morgans made huge fortunes in the China clipper opium trades?

I am not quite sure of your point with this comment other than the fact that the drug trade was legal in China, initially. However, I will point out that the opium trade severely weakened China. In fact, as I recall, it was one of the motivators for the “Boxer Rebellion” which colonial powers (including the US) put down. If legalized drug trade hurt China, it can potentially do the same for any other country… including the US.

The progressives of both parties are the primary creators of leviathan, copying policies from the euro-collectivists, bent on "scientifically" managing and planning economies and societies, for our own good of course, nudge - nudge.

Again, I am unsure of how this comment relates to our previous discussion. Nonetheless, even if you are correct, the fact that such "scientifically" managing and planning has taken place has been at the volition of the voters. While the corruptness and ineptitude of the political parties and politicians of all stripes is certainly a topic worthy of investigation and, perhaps, correction, it has still been the American voter who has put in power the various politicians enacting such laws and endorsing activities.

Besides the amendment process, the Constitution has mechanisms within it to dissolve federal courts, impeach judges, and limit jurisdictions of every federal court, even the Supreme Court (except for matters of original jurisdiction specified in the Constitution).

The only productive government activity there ever was, according to the constitution, is a Govt commited to adhering to the constituion that gave it life, and whose sole purpose was in protecting our shores, our property and our pre-existing natural & civil rights.

In very general terms and philosophical grounds, I am inclined to agree with you. However, there are certain natural & civil rights that come into conflict with each other as well as with the government’s duty to protect our shores and our property. Additionally, there are issues of long term protection versus the short term limitations for the sake of that long term action. Beyond these issues are states’ rights issues. In short, “it as easy as it looks.”

It just never did allow Congress to constitutionally create such as the ICC, the Fed'l Reserve, an income tax, SS, welfare, graduated taxes, bridges to nowhere and all other grandiose monuments to politicians at taxpayer expense. IE nothing Congress spends should have ever been spent that does not benefit all taxpayers equally, as a battleship would.

By your logic, it didn’t allow Congress to create the FAA or the FCC, either. Do you maintain that these agencies should not exist? If you maintain that these agencies should not exist, then, exactly, who do you think should handle the air traffic system or the regulation of radio frequency allocations, etc.

Income tax was specifically authorized by the XVI Amendment to the Constitution. That amendment did not restrict Congress in how it could implement the amendment. Consequently, your are mistaken about the lack of Constitutionality of “graduated taxes.” Such are, in deed, very Constitutional. As to Social Security and other forms of welfare, I agree with you philosophically. However, the courts have consistently ruled that these programs are Constitutional. So as I have posed to another poster on this thread: if you think it is wrong, run for office get yourself elected and change it. The Constitution gives the power to do so to Congress.

The several states were intended to be the individual testbeds of liberty, that only a limited Fedl Govt can foster. Giving citizens the ability to vote with their feet, rewarding the states that best treated their citizens and protected their rights. Such is the dilemma still inescapable today in publik edukation - no free choice, a totally unAmerican situation.

Again, as I put it to another poster:

Do you vote in every [includes all of the local primaries, school boards, etc.] election? Are you active in the political party of your choice? Do you run for office at any level? Do you, or have you, served in the armed forces? Do you communicate with your elected representatives? Do you write letters to the editor of your local newspapers?

If you think the current system and/or situation is wrong or “screwed up,” change it… It is within your power if you can convince enough of your fellow citizens.

[budwiesest]

Why not just answer the question directly?

Your hypothetical assumes a bit much and I disagree with this presumtion: that under such duress a 'significant portion' of the population would seek to get 'high' rather than pursue survival activities. I don't think anything like that took place in New Orleans, but I could be mistaken.

The only 'solution' would be to rally the troops you might have left, and 'lead' them out of the abyss. Granted, it would take leadership rather than it's cheap cousin- invoking the police state. Perhaps this is what you had in mind?

From your indirect response, it appears you would concede that child safety belt laws are ok, after all.

No. Your questions were: Is a child a citizen? Are not all citizens entitled to the full protection of the law from those who threaten their lives?

They would be if a person were actively (directly) 'threatening' their lives (by planning to hit a tree at 60mph, for example). You prefer to invoke the power of the state over the parent (a red flag if ever there was one) by imposing a risk reduction scheme that may or may not apply to them, certainly not under all driving conditions.

In rare cases, children may die because they couldn't be extracted from your state mandated car seat quickly enough. Who do I sue? Some nanny stater/busybody just killed my child.

it seems that you would prefer a driver kill someone speeding, than be punished for violating the speed limit. In theory, there is no difference between requiring a driver to observe the traffic laws concerning speed limits and in not driving drunk.

In theory, speed limits are references as to what would be 'safe' speeds under good driving conditions. In a theory that I shall now pull out of my butt (as you did), exceeding the recommended 'safe' speed may be exactly the same as driving above the 'safe' legal BAC limit when one can do so without causing harm to others.

Germany has the Autobahn. Nevada 'used' to have no-limit sections of highway. While I can't point to any particular place where drunks get home without incident, I'll take comfort in the knowledge that the thousands of bars and restaurants serving liquor enjoy a significant repeat business.

Law enforcement is entitled to stop a speeding driver even though he or she has not yet killed anyone. Why should they not be entitled to stop a drunk driver before he or she has killed someone?

Entitled? Did you say entitled? Title goes only to those who have ownership. The state doesn't own anything beyond a bunch of parks, they certainly don't possess a 'title' to your driving priviledge, any more than they have 'title' to your breathing priviledge.

What they have is: permission, permission by the legislature to filch your wallet under the same false risk-reduction protocol as mentioned above re: child safety seats. Or "Click it- or Ticket". Nothing more than revenue enhancements for the state at the loss of your individual rights.

Stopping a drunk driver before they kill someone requires a degree of crystal ball reading that I doubt most cadets acquire upon leaving the academy. Most of them would probably refuse to go by the first name: Madame- while wearing a silk scarf on their head. So, we institute a standard instead: .10 (whoops, change that [see Clinton E.O.]), .08 (better- we get the highway funds), .01 (for anyone under 18).

it is potentially within your power through the ballot box to change it, if you can convince enough of your fellow citizens to support your position.

This is THE bright spot in your post. I agree wholeheartedly. Yet, politics are a fickle thing when it comes to changing hearts- while trying to come to the defense of liberty in a world where acceptance of individual responsibility (liberty) is so easily traded for that bag-o-sh*t called security.

[Lucky Dog]

Why not just answer the question directly?

Your hypothetical assumes a bit much and I disagree with this presumption...

You still have not directly answered the question, unless you consider the following your direct answer:

The only 'solution' would be to rally the troops you might have left, and 'lead' them out of the abyss. Granted, it would take leadership rather than it's cheap cousin- invoking the police state. Perhaps this is what you had in mind?

If the above is, in deed, your response, then the “translation” is you would allow (in the hypothetical situation presented) the US to collapse or be over run (absent such miraculous leadership) rather than restrict hallucinogenic and narcotic drug use. Correct?

From such a response, it would appear that you value a nation of liberty too little to restrict, even, the most egregious non-productive behavior to save it. Is this statement also a correct representation of your position?

From your indirect response, it appears you would concede that child safety belt laws are ok, after all.

No. Your questions were: Is a child a citizen? Are not all citizens entitled to the full protection of the law from those who threaten their lives?

They would be if a person were actively (directly) 'threatening' their lives (by planning to hit a tree at 60mph, for example).

Perhaps you have never heard of the term, “negligent homicide” (known as “manslaughter” in some jurisdictions)? Last I checked, it didn’t require “planning to hit a tree” (which, by the way, would have made it premeditated murder). Nonetheless, it is still a crime, i.e., against the law. Citizens (including children), in deed, have a natural right to “life,” (as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) i.e., to be protected from those who would unlawfully deprive them of this right through “negligent homicide” or “manslaughter.”

You prefer to invoke the power of the state over the parent (a red flag if ever there was one) by imposing a risk reduction scheme that may or may not apply to them, certainly not under all driving conditions.

For your information, we, the people, have established and ordained a government through a constitution that does invoke the power of the state (although not at the federal level) to, in fact, impose a risk reduction scheme on those who would commit negligent homicide. Exactly, what part of that is a “red flag?”

In rare cases, children may die because they couldn't be extracted from your state mandated car seat quickly enough. Who do I sue? Some nanny stater/busybody just killed my child.

Your proposed suit is a matter to be settled at civil law, not criminal law. Whomever is the subject of your suit, should you chose to pursue it, would be a common law issue, not a criminal law issue.

it seems that you would prefer a driver kill someone speeding, than be punished for violating the speed limit. In theory, there is no difference between requiring a driver to observe the traffic laws concerning speed limits and in not driving drunk.

In theory, speed limits are references as to what would be 'safe' speeds under good driving conditions....

You are only partially correct. The speed limit is also a legal restriction, i.e., legal prohibition against exceeding it. An apprehension for violation of this legal prohibition results in a misdemeanor or a felony charge in some jurisdictions (depending upon the degree of excess).

In a theory that I shall now pull out of my butt (as you did), exceeding the recommended 'safe' speed may be exactly the same as driving above the 'safe' legal BAC limit when one can do so without causing harm to others. ... While I can't point to any particular place where drunks get home without incident, I'll take comfort in the knowledge that the thousands of bars and restaurants serving liquor enjoy a significant repeat business.

Your reference to a certain portion of the anatomy as a source for your opinions notwithstanding, the issue is not as you have postulated. Using your reasoning, it is possible to intentionally and knowingly fire a weapon in the direction of another person and not hit them (not causing harm to others) and not be guilty of attempted murder, negligent homicide, reckless endangerment, or some other violation of the law. I do not think that you would be so willing to assume this position if you or your loved ones were the ones at the discharge end of the weapon.

There were 16,694 alcohol-related fatalities in 2004 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year. An estimated 248,000 people in that same year were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present. Is it your position that these victims should not be protected from deprivation of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness by the law?

Germany has the Autobahn. Nevada 'used' to have no-limit sections of highway. While I can't point to any particular place where drunks get home without incident,

Similarly, there are section of the Autobahn that have speed limits and, as you observed, sections of highway in Nevada that also have them. The law, as enacted by the representatives of the people, has established a limit on certain behaviors, i.e., speeding.

Law enforcement is entitled to stop a speeding driver even though he or she has not yet killed anyone. Why should they not be entitled to stop a drunk driver before he or she has killed someone?

Entitled? Did you say entitled? Title goes only to those who have ownership. The state doesn't own anything beyond a bunch of parks, they certainly don't possess a 'title' to your driving priviledge, any more than they have 'title' to your breathing priviledge.

You are mistaken. Law enforcement is entitled by the law, as in, for example, Title 10 US Code, etc. However, beyond your misunderstanding of the usage of a word, your misunderstanding extends far deeper. You correctly identified driving as a “privilege,” i.e., it is not one of those “natural rights” to which all citizens are “entitled” such as life, i.e., “breathing.” The representatives of the people, i.e., government, may restrict whatever “privileges” as they choose as long as such restrictions apply uniformly to all citizens. I trust your misunderstanding is clarified, now.

What they have is: permission, permission by the legislature to filch your wallet under the same false risk-reduction protocol as mentioned above re: child safety seats. Or "Click it- or Ticket". Nothing more than revenue enhancements for the state at the loss of your individual rights.

While I certainly can not argue that some corrupt officials use speed laws as a revenue enhancement, such is not the intended outcome of state enacted speed limitations. Additionally, as you noted above, driving is a privilege, not a right.

Stopping a drunk driver before they kill someone requires a degree of crystal ball reading that I doubt most cadets acquire upon leaving the academy. Most of them would probably refuse to go by the first name: Madame- while wearing a silk scarf on their head. So, we institute a standard instead: .10 (whoops, change that [see Clinton E.O.]), .08 (better- we get the highway funds), .01 (for anyone under 18).

It is possible to require the installation of “breath-o-lizers” into the ignition circuitry of automobiles. Such would certainly stop most drunk drivers from killing someone. Would you prefer this alternative? (Actually, except for increasing the cost of automobiles, such an approach has a certain egalitarian merit to it.)

In any case, police officers can not, under the color of law enforcement, stop a driver without reasonable suspicion. Such suspicion is usually evidenced by erratic vehicle control or other obvious indicators.

it is potentially within your power through the ballot box to change it, if you can convince enough of your fellow citizens to support your position.

This is THE bright spot in your post. I agree wholeheartedly. Yet, politics are a fickle thing when it comes to changing hearts- while trying to come to the defense of liberty in a world where acceptance of individual responsibility (liberty) is so easily traded for that bag-o-sh*t called security.

Well, it nice to know that we do, in fact, agree. Now, perhaps it is time for those who would complain to take action, regardless of the “fickleness of politics when it comes to changing hearts.” Granted, it would take leadership...