Replies

I don't even agree with your recap.

Sorry, it was an honest attempt to briefly encapsulate points for better understanding and discussion. Perhaps, you would like to try your hand at the task?

It allows repetition of discussion points already discussed and dismissed…

Sorry, again, I was unaware that we had agreed to dismiss any points. However, if you wish to put on the table those points which you think have been dismissal items, I would be glad to review them for possible agreement with your assessment

A. The function of any, and all, governments is the maintenance of social order…

The function of our Government is what is being discussed and its functions are spelled out clearly in the constitution.

The statement listed in item A is a generality, i.e., it applies to all governments of any type, including our own. What you are apparently quarrelling over is the specific type of order that our government maintains.

As to your assertion that our government’s functions are spelled out clearly in the constitution, I invite you to consider the following fact: If these functions were so “clearly spelled out,” there would not exist all of the Supreme Courts cases that have been decided from the beginning of our government clarifying these “clearly spelled out functions in the constitution.”

B. Pure libertarians hold that government should be minimized and that government should have only that power necessary to prevent an individual or group of individuals from coercively imposing their will on other individuals or groups …

I'm not a libertarian, however I think that the majority holds that the government should be restrained to it's constitutionally mandated powers.

In principle, I agree with you. However, the question arises from some quarters as to exactly what those powers are, as well as, what means are appropriate to carry them out.

To reprise one of our forbearers, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” From this statement one can conclude that there are some things the founding fathers left to the interpretations of future generations concerning the application of the Constitution.

C. Even pure libertarians agree that some type of government must be called upon to coercively balance individual rights based upon certain principles.

Uh-huh

I assume that this response is agreement, is it not?

D. [T]he pure libertarian… can only support a constitutionally limited, democratically-elected, republican form of government with certain individual rights immutably and irrevocably enshrined in that constitution…

Again I'm not a libertarian...and I won't speculate on what forms of government they can or can not support.

However, as an item of interest, do you concur with the statement on your own (regardless of your self-identified political leanings)?

[A] pure libertarian could never support any economic system except capitalism since all others arbitrarily limit the individual’s freedom to engage any commercial enterprise of choice.

That makes sense to me.

I take it that we have another point of agreement, here.

Yet another area (indirectly germane to the economic vein) where some other posters (and possibly you) have disagreed with a position of mine is that government must actively discourage hallucinogenic and narcotic drugs.

Where is that power listed in the Constitution?

It is called “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the “Commerce Clause.”

I hold that a certain, significant percentage of the population must, of necessity, be economically “productive” or the entire population, figuratively, or perhaps, literally, “starves” and the “society” collapses or becomes too weak to resist active take-over by a competing, non-libertarian society. In the interest of justice and common sense, it is inappropriate for the government to intentionally not act in this area until a certain, critical percentage of the population has become non-productive. There are two reasons for this position. First, addiction once it occurs is difficult if not impossible to reverse for a large number of citizens. Thus the productivity problem is not solved. Second, it is intuitively unjust to let some people engage in such activity, but when the percentage becomes too high, to arbitrarily out law the activity. Therefore, for the sake of common sense, it must discouraged consistently.

Where is that power listed in the constitution?

Again, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the Article I, section 8.

Another area (not directly germane to the economic vein) where some other posters (and possibly you) have disagreed with a position of mine is that government must proactively prevent nominally libertarian activities which threaten to dissolve the society which, otherwise, supports a libertarian system.

Where is that power listed in the constitution?

Yet, again, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” Again, I also refer you to Article I, section 8.

It is my position that government must actively discourage gay marriage (nominally an individual liberty choice) because the practice weakens the heterosexual family unit and thus, potentially causes the collapse of the “society” in which the libertarian would exist.

Where is that power listed in the constitution?

Yet, once more, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” And again, I also refer you to Article I, section 8.

As to your assertion that our government’s functions are spelled out clearly in the constitution, I invite you to consider the following fact: If these functions were so “clearly spelled out,” there would not exist all of the Supreme Courts cases that have been decided from the beginning of our government clarifying these “clearly spelled out functions in the constitution.”
That's absurd. The functions are clearly spelled out...so clearly in fact that a grade school student could read the constitution and derive it's meaning. The reason so many supreme court decisions exist isn't to clarify the powers of government but usurp powers that clearly were not included.

In principle, I agree with you. However, the question arises from some quarters as to exactly what those powers are, as well as, what means are appropriate to carry them out.
The questions arising typically aren't actual questions but attempts to twist the meaning of plain text as an excuse for some power grab.

It is called “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the “Commerce Clause.”
Again, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the Article I, section 8.
Yet, again, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” Again, I also refer you to Article I, section 8.
Yet, once more, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” And again, I also refer you to Article I, section 8.

The preamble does not carry the weight of law. The "general welfare clause" doesn't exist as such, and that fact is quite clear in both a textual analysis and reviewing any historical documents concerning that very question. The only powers the government has are those which are specifically enumerated. Having a "carte Blanche" clause makes no sense in context of limiting the powers of government. The commerce clause is also quite specific in it's powers. It was not intended as a "Carte Blanche" clause either.

To reprise one of our forbearers, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” From this statement one can conclude that there are some things the founding fathers left to the interpretations of future generations concerning the application of the Constitution.
If we remove the limits on government power then that will be our suicide. The founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be changed by "interpretation" or why would they have included a mechanism within the constitution to change it. If the government requires a power then the amendment process exists to give them that power without destroying, twisting and perverting the the very foundation of our society ie: the constitution. Your demonstrably wrong "theory" of the constitution, while popular, is the basis of the problems we face, and no matter how much we continue to pervert the constitution, it will never be enough to correct the problem.

It is called “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the “Commerce Clause.”

But this just can't be.

If this really meant what you take it to mean--that the "general welfare" clause of Art. I, Sec. 8 gives the federal government power to regulate anything it deems to be contrary to the general welfare, then it has unlimited power--and that clearly defeats the purpose of the entire document. If Art. I, Sec. 8 gives the government that broad of powers, why bother enumerating Congressional powers in the same section, even! Isn't that redundant at best, and contradictory at worst?

In sum, I really don't think you can honestly read the general welfare clause that broadly; it creates a de facto national government. That seems to defeat the purpose of the rest of the document: creating a federal government of limited, enumerated powers.