"Well, I didn't ask what you say libertarians say. I asked what power you think it grants."
Considering that this thread is about what is wrong with Libertarianism, and not Southack, I think that it would be a bit arrogant and insensitive for me to hijack this thread for a discussion of what I think that the general welfare clause means.
On the other hand, you'll notice that libertarians tend to think that the general welfare clause can be disregarded from our Constitution. They seem to usually claim that it conveys no power to government (i.e., has no meaning).
In fact, when you ask them, often they can't name a single thing that general welfare can mean. You libs really do read the Constitution as though those words were never written into law.
And that misinterpretation of our Constitution is ONE of the things wrong with Libertarians, per the topic of this thread.
that misinterpretation of our Constitution is ONE of the things wrong with LibertariansLibertarians think we're still living under the Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution clearly grants gobs and gobs of power to the FEDERAL government and NOT the states. It was written entirely to STOP the states from exercising rights, like the right to coin their own money, or cheat other states in business. If libertarians don't like the Constitution, they should say so, but they shouldn't pretend it means something other than it does.
Considering that this thread is about what is wrong with Libertarianism, and not Southack, I think that it would be a bit arrogant and insensitive for me to hijack this thread for a discussion of what I think that the general welfare clause means.If the libertarian interpretation is wrong, there has to be some other interpretation which is right. Since you're beng evasive, I'll go ahead and tell the truth about that phrase.
The phrase "general welfare" indeed has no more meaning than any other isolated phrase. If you say "rocking chair", no one knows if you mean "bring the rocking chair here" or "buy a rocking chair" or "chop the rocking chair up and burn it". You have to read the whole clause to get any clear idea what the meaning is. So, here's the clause:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Now we see that paying the debts and providing for the common defense and general welfare does indeed have a very particular meaning: it's the reason for the power to tax.
And, as is standard, here's that exerpt from Federalist #41:
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare.'' But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.
But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!