Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html ^

Posted on 02/01/2002 10:21:47 AM PST by Exnihilo

Why is libertarianism wrong?

Why is libertarianism wrong?

The origins, background, values, effects, and defects of libertarianism. Some sections are abstract, but at the end some irreducible value conflicts are clearly stated.


origins

Libertarianism is part of the Anglo-American liberal tradition in political philosophy. It is a development of classic liberalism, and not a separate category from it. It is specifically linked to the United States. Many libertarian texts are written by people, who know only North American political culture and society. They claim universal application for libertarianism, but it remains culture-bound. For instance, some libertarians argue by quoting the US Constitution, without apparently realising, that it is not in force outside the USA. Most online material on libertarianism contrasts it to liberalism, but this contrast is also specific the USA - where the word 'liberal' is used to mean 'left-of-centre'. Here, the word 'liberal' is used in the European sense: libertarians are a sub-category of liberals. As political philosophy, liberalism includes John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek, Isaiah Berlin, and John Rawls. As a political movement, it is represented by the continental-European liberal parties in the Liberal International.

At this point, you might expect a definition of libertarianism. However, most definitions of libertarianism are written by libertarians themselves, and they are extremely propagandistic. "Libertarianism is freedom!' is a slogan, not a definition. Most other definitions of libertarianism borrow from those self-definitions, so I have avoided them. Instead, the values, claims, and effects listed below describe the reality of libertarianism.

values

The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded. It is a system of belief, a 'worldview'. If you are a libertarian, then there is no point in reading any further. There is no attempt here to convert you: your belief is simply rejected. The rejection is comprehensive, meaning that all the starting points of libertarian argument (premises) are also rejected. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument.

The libertarian belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most libertarians. Certainly, no libertarian rejects them all...

the claims and self-image of libertarianism

Libertarians tend to speak in slogans - "we want freedom", "we are against bureaucracy" - and not in political programmes. Even when they give a direct definition of libertarianism, it is not necessarily true.

The differences between libertarian image and libertarian reality are summarised in this table.

libertarian image libertarian reality
Image: non-coercion, no initiation of force Reality: libertarians legitimise economic injustice, by refusing to define it as coercion or initiated force
Image: moral autonomy of the individual Reality: libertarians demand that the individual accept the outcome of market forces
Image: political freedom Reality: some form of libertarian government, imposing libertarian policies on non-libertarians
Image: libertarians condemn existing states as oppressive Reality: libertarians use the political process in existing states to implement their policies
Image: benefits of libertarianism Reality: libertarians claim the right to decide for others, what constitutes a 'benefit'


political structures in a libertarian society

Values do not enforce their own existence in the social world. The values of libertarianism would have to be enforced, like those of any other political ideology. These political structures would be found in most libertarian societies.

effects

The effects of a libertarian world flow from the values it enforces.

what is libertarianism?

With the values and effects listed above, the general characteristics of libertarianism can be summarised.

Firstly, libertarianism is a legitimation of the existing order, at least in the United States. All political regimes have a legitimising ideology, which gives an ethical justification for the exercise of political power. The European absolute monarchies, for instance, appealed to the doctrine of legitimate descent. The King was the son of a previous King, and therefore (so the story went), entitled to be king. In turn, a comprehensive opposition to a regime will have a comprehensive justification for abolishing it. Libertarianism is not a 'revolutionary ideology' in that sense, seeking to overthrow fundamental values of the society around it. In fact, most US libertarians have a traditionalist attitude to American core values. Libertarianism legitimises primarily the free-market, and the resulting social inequalities.

Specifically libertarianism is a legitimation for the rich - the second defining characteristic. If Bill Gates wants to defend his great personal wealth (while others are starving) then libertarianism is a comprehensive option. His critics will accuse him of greed. They will say he does not need the money and that others desperately need it. They will say his wealth is an injustice, and insist that the government redistribute it. Liberalism (classic liberal philosophy) offers a defence for all these criticisms, but libertarianism is sharper in its rejection. That is not to say that Bill Gates 'pays all the libertarians'. (He would pay the Republican Party instead, which is much better organised, and capable of winning elections). Libertarianism is not necessarily invented or financed, by those who benefit from the ideology. In the USA and certainly in Europe, self-declared libertarians are a minority within market-liberal and neoliberal politics - also legitimising ideologies. To put it crudely, Bill Gates and his companies do not need the libertarians - although they are among his few consistent defenders. (Libertarians formed a 'Committee for the Moral Defense of Microsoft' during the legal actions against the firm).

Thirdly, libertarians are conservatives. Many are openly conservative, but others are evasive about the issue. But in the case of openly conservative libertarians, the intense commitment to conservatism forms the apparent core of their beliefs. I suggest this applies to most libertarians: they are not really interested in the free market or the non-coercion principle or limited government, but in their effects. Perhaps what libertarians really want is to prevent innovation, to reverse social change, or in some way to return to the past. Certainly conservative ideals are easy to find among libertarians. Charles Murray, for instance, writes in What it means to be a Libertarian (p. 138):

The triumph of an earlier America was that it has set all the right trends in motion, at a time when the world was first coming out of millennia of poverty into an era of plenty. The tragedy of contemporary America is that it abandonned that course. Libertarians want to return to it.

Now, Murray is an easy target: he is not only an open conservative, but also a racist. (As co-author of The Bell Curve he is probably the most influential western academic theorist of racial inferiority). But most US libertarians share his nostalgia for the early years of the United States, although it was a slave-owning society. Libertarianism, however, is also structurally conservative in its rejection of revolutionary force (or any innovative force). Without destruction there can be no long-term social change: a world entirely without coercion and force would be a static world.

the real value conflicts with libertarians

The descriptions of libertarianism above are abstract, and criticise its internal inconsistency. Many libertarian texts are insubstantial - just simple propaganda tricks, and misleading appeals to emotion. But there are irreducible differences in fundamental values, between libertarians and their opponents. Because they are irreducible, no common ground of shared values exists: discussion is fruitless. The non-libertarian alternative values include these...

the alternative: what should the state do?

The fundamental task of the state, in a world of liberal market-democratic nation states, is to innovate. To innovate in contravention of national tradition, to innovate when necessary in defiance of the 'will of the people', and to innovate in defiance of market forces and market logic. Libertarians reject any such draconian role for the state - but then libertarians are not the carriers of absolute truth.

These proposed 'tasks of the state' are a replacement for the standard version, used in theoretical works on public administration:

  1. to restrict tradition and heritage, to limit transgenerational culture and transgenerational community - especially if they inhibit innovation
  2. to restrict 'national values', that is the imposition of an ethnic or nation-specific morality
  3. to permit the individual to secede from the nation state, the primary transgenerational community
  4. to limit market forces, and their effects
  5. to permit the individual to secede from the free market
  6. to restrict an emergent civil society, that is, control of society by a network of elite 'actors' (businesses and NGO's)
  7. to prevent a 'knowledge society' - a society where a single worldview (with an absolute claim to truth) is uncontested .
To avoid confusion, note that they are not all directed against libertarianism: but if libertarians shaped the world, the state would do none of these things.


relevant links

Index page: liberalism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Liberalism - the mainstream definitions of liberalism.

Liberal Manifesto of Oxford (1947), European political liberalism. Some elements, such as "Loyal adherence to a world organisation of all nations..." would now be rejected by the same parties.

Libertäre Ideologie - a series of articles on the libertarian ideology at the online magazine Telepolis. Even if you can not read German, it is useful as a source of links, to libertarian and related sites.

European Libertarians. The Statue of Liberty on their homepage also symbolises Atlanticism: there is no recent libertarian tradition in Europe, outside the UK. More typical of European ultra-liberal politics is the New Right economic liberalism which was at the start of the Thatcher government in Britain. See for example the Institute for Economic Studies Europe, or in central Europe the Czech Liberální Institut.

Libertarian NL, a Dutch libertarian homepage (Aschwin de Wolf). But look at the political issues, the political thinkers, and the links: the libertarian world consists primarily of the United States. In December 2000 the featured theme was an open letter to Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the US central bank (Federal Reserve Board). Yet this is a Dutch website, made by people who live in Europe. Their currency policy is made by European central bank chairman Wim Duisenberg, the former Netherlands central bank president. But they chose to ignore the society around them, and live as wannabe US citizens. Again, a recurrent pattern among European libertarians.

Libertarisme: De renaissance van het klassiek liberalisme by Aschwin de Wolf. This introduction to libertarianism, written for the members of the Netherlands liberal party VVD, illustrates the missionary attitude of libertarians in Europe. European liberalism has become corrupted, they claim, and must reform itself on the model of US libertarianism.

Libertarisme FAQ: explicit about the conservative effects of libertarianism: "Je zou echter wel kunnen stellen dat het libertarisme conservatief is in die zin dat zij mensen in hun waarde laat en geen progressieve experimenten door de overheid toelaat. Het libertarisme is dus heel goed verenigbaar met het koesteren van tradities of andere overgeleverde manieren van leven."

democratic expansionism: liberal market democracy itself depends on coercion, a US military invasion for example

The advantage of capitalist trucks, David Friedman

The Cathedral and the Bazaar: libertarian ideologists are switching their attention from the Internet to Open Source. This text restates a theme from classic liberal philosophy: the contrast between emergent and ideal order (market and Church).

The non-statist FAQ seems to have gone offline (December 2000).

Critiques Of Libertarianism, the best-known anti-libertarian site, but almost exclusively US-American in content.

Elfnet: O/S for a Global Brain?: a good example of the combination of New Age, computer science, and globalism in global-brain connectionism. Opens, as you might expect, with a quote from Kevin Kelly.

Multi-Agent Systems / Hypereconomy: organicist free-market ideas from Alexander Chislenko, "...a contract economy looks much like a forest ecology..."
Networking in the Mind Age: Chislenko on a network global-brain. "The infomorph society will be built on new organizational principles and will represent a blend of a superliquid economy, cyberspace anarchy and advanced consciousness". I hope it works better than his website, which crashed my browser.

Gigantism in Soviet Space: the Soviet Union's state-organised mega-projects are a horror for all liberals. They contravene almost every libertarian precept.

The Right to Discriminate, from the libertarian "Constitution of Oceania". Few libertarians are so explicit about this, but logically it fits. The Right to Own a Business also provides that "Mandatory disability benefits for transvestites, pedophiles, pyromaniacs, kleptomaniacs, drug addicts, and compulsive gamblers are obviously forbidden."

Virtual Canton Constitution, from the libertarian think-tank Free Nation Foundation. Although they claim to be anti-statists, libertarians write many and detailed Constitutions. This one re-appears in the generally libertarian Amsterdam 2.0 urban design project.

Serbia and Bosnia: A Foreign Policy Formulation : libertarianism solves the Bosnia problem. "I am a newcomer to foreign policy and cannot claim to understand all that matters". From the Free Nation site, which advocates a (logically inconsistent) libertarian state.

Libertarian immigration: Entirely free, but, but...."Fortunately, a truly free society would be protected by the fact that all property would be private. Only an immigrant who had permission to occupy the property of another could even enter the country. Even roads and sidewalks would be privately owned and would probably require some type of fee for entry."

Libertarian Foreign Policy, Libertarian Party of Canada. An example of the isolationism which at present characterises North American libertarianism, despite its inherent universalist character.

The Unlikeliest Cult in History



TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aynrand; libertarianism; libertarians; medicalmarijuana
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 441-445 next last
To: takenoprisoner
As we all now know, the anti-federalists against this phrases insertion were right all along, and Madison was dead wrong.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The real problem is the twisting of the interstate commerce clause.

381 posted on 02/02/2002 10:50:20 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
This pieces is a bunch of abstract mumbo jumo. You could change half the words and the meaning would remain the same - whatever
382 posted on 02/02/2002 10:50:56 AM PST by is lurking enough?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
This pieces is a bunch of abstract mumbo jumo. You could change half the words and the meaning would remain the same - whatever
383 posted on 02/02/2002 10:51:11 AM PST by is lurking enough?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
As can be seen from what I posted the founders failed to expound and limit it's meaning.

Bullshit. If you'll read what I posted, specifically the quote from Federalist #41, they most certainly did expound and limit the meaning.

Then you post some dreck which starts, right at the beginning, "Article I, section 8 of the Constitution confers upon Congress certain enumerated powers and a potentially more sweeping authority to provide for the general welfare, a goal also set forth in the Preamble." Anyone who thinks there are powers granted by the preamble has problems reading; those are the purposes of the Constitution, not the powers of Congress.

384 posted on 02/02/2002 11:01:11 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"If you think there's a "general welfare power", you logically have to agree with xm177e2 in his claim that Congress can do anything it claims is in the general welfare. ... If it's not granted by that clause, it's not granted at all. "General welfare" grants everything, or nothing."

Like most Libertarians, you've definitely contracted the all-or-nothing disease. By your logic the "general welfare" clause either has no meaning and can be disregarded as if it was never written into our Constitution, or else it has unlimited meaning and invalidates the rest of the Constitution.

I refer you to post #377, which dissects the general welfare clause reasonably well for having such a limited amount of space to do so with in the first place.

You and I clearly disagree on this point. This is one of the points that I have cited as being wrong with Libertarians, in that libs consistently misinterpret the Constitution. You would have us either throw out the phrase "general welfare" or throw out the rest of the Constitution.

Neither of your extreme bi-polar claims are accurate, however. The truth is somewhere in the middle (again, see post #377). The general welfare clause does have meaning and does convey to our government some power, but that power is NOT unlimited. In alcohol, slavery, gambling, and secession are incontravertible examples of LIMITS and boundaries on the general welfare clause.

In contrast, your views would either throw out the phrase "general welfare" as if it had never been written, or else throw out the rest of the Constitution as if it was all superfluous.

You can't do either, legally. Every word has to count in the Constitution. You can't just run around and toss out unpleasant phrases simply because they are inconvenient to your political philosophy. In fact, you can't toss them out for any reason unless you follow the Constitutional Amendment process.

385 posted on 02/02/2002 12:03:04 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

Nice post!

386 posted on 02/02/2002 12:05:36 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; southack
"Bullshit. If you'll read what I posted, specifically the quote from Federalist #41, they most certainly did expound and limit the meaning."

I posted the book review in #377 as a summary of the history of claims of what the clause means. I happen to agree with you, that it was intended as a justification for taxes raised for the enumerated powers. I also happen to agree with takenoprisoner, that the Anti-Federalists were correct in their claim that it could and would be taken as a grant of unlimited unenumerated power. The review I posted gives,

"Any doubt remaining after Butler as to the scope of the General Welfare Clause was dispelled a year later in Helvering. There the Court defended the constitutionality of the 1935 Social Security Act, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. Justice Benjamin Cardozo summed up what has become controlling doctrine ever since: "Nor is the concept of the general welfare static.... What is critical or urgent changes with the times." "

They(Madison) should have it explicit in the Constitution itself, not just in the Federalist papers. As the review notes, Madison's private papers contain other meanings.

" But privately, Madison believed that the General Welfare Clause delegates to the Congress plenary legislative power; that the enumeration of specific powers served simply to allocate and assign governmental functions, establish certain procedural limitations, and illustrate some of the powers deemed to be necessary and proper. This alleged difference between Madison’s public and private persona is at the root of the so-called Madisonian contradiction."

I don't have the private papers, but it is because of this Madisonian contradiction and lack of explicit meaning, that I made the statement, "As can be seen from what I posted the founders failed to expound and limit it's meaning." You posted in #341 what is truly the meaning of the clause. Any private comms Madison made are overruled by the public annoucements, because it's the public that's being addressed and if contrary meaning is given in private, it can only be taken as fraud and tossed out on that basis.

Southack, you haven't posted anything, but etherial comment and slander. You've also failed to post anything of substantial worth, or the legal value of, "who knows what your claims are regarding the welfare clause, you haven't made any." Your claims consist of telling everyone else they are wrong.

387 posted on 02/02/2002 12:27:03 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"so to does the general welfare clause authorize unenumerated government programs."

Sorry, I was wrong. It was burried in the mud.

388 posted on 02/02/2002 12:30:01 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
"Southack, you haven't posted anything, but etherial comment and slander."

Please show me the specific post where I slandered someone so that I may apologize.

389 posted on 02/02/2002 12:33:37 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: Southack
#312 is an example.

"Absolutely no meaning (at least to libertarians). According to Libertarians you can just disregard the phrase "general welfare" as if it were never written into the Constitution."

The essence of this claim was made more than a few times. It is a misrepresentation, a falsehood that has no purpose, but to malign.

An apology isn't appropriate. In the discussion, substantiation of your claim that the welfare clause grants unlimited powers would be. It is my guess they are the ones that hold to a living Constitution. I don't believe in that artistic interpretation, but it is still law, however flawed.

390 posted on 02/02/2002 12:50:49 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

You are kidding, right?!

You accuse me of slander and then say that no apology is needed, and provide #312 as an "example"?!

Either I slandered someone or I didn't. I don't see it, and I asked you nicely to show me where I so did.

Now I'm thinking that perhaps I'm not the one who needs to apologize...

391 posted on 02/02/2002 1:01:02 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
"An apology isn't appropriate. In the discussion, substantiation of your claim that the welfare clause grants unlimited powers would be."

You do realize that I've made MULTIPLE posts in which I've specifically named at least FOUR examples of LIMITS on the power conveyed by the general welfare clause to the federal government.

Those examples included alcohol, slavery, gambling, and secession (as well as other states' rights issues).

Unlimited powers, indeed...

392 posted on 02/02/2002 1:06:29 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Southack
What part of making false accusations against libertarians don't you get? If it's not clear, then it provides insight into why you hold to the claims of the proponents of the living Constitution. That happens to be a topic you introduced into the thread. At minimum AJA, takenoprisoner and myself gave and posted support for our positions. It includes the public explaination of the meaning of the phrase, made at the time of by the founders.

Several libertarians(?) have given you the original meaning, that carries much weight, because it is what was made known to the folks that signed the document into law. It's clearly given in the above posts and AJ's post of Madison's public explaination is given in #341. If you want to promote the living version of the Constitution, then you'll have to post substantiation for that interpretation. That would allow the claims and arguments they made, to be clear and open to examine for falsehoods and logical fallicy.

393 posted on 02/02/2002 1:32:49 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Unlimited powers, indeed...I noticed you gave those examples, but they were just given w/o the reasoning behind them. From your #358

"Just as the common defense clause authorizes unenumerated items such as national missile defense, so to does the general welfare clause authorize unenumerated government programs."

W/o some kind of reasoning behind the limits you gave, your #358 leaves me to think you hold to unlimited powers.

394 posted on 02/02/2002 1:40:54 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
"What part of making false accusations against libertarians don't you get?"

Rubbish. You've just been busted for wrongly claiming that I slandered someone.

First of all, Libertarians DO claim that the general welfare clause has no meaning and conveys no power to the federal government, so my accusation isn't false.

And second, it wouldn't be slander even if it was false simply because it isn't derogatory. It is a neutral statement of position on an issue.

Libertarians think that our Constitution doesn't allow social spending. They hold that view because they think that the general welfare clause conveys no power to the federal government.

It isn't slander to point that fact out.

And frankly, your craven notion that you need to debate my view of the Constitution is flawed, at best. This is NOT a thread about what is wrong with Southack, such as that might relieve you of the challenges that you face. Instead, this is a thread about what is wrong with Libertarianism.

And one of those things is that Libertarians consisntently claim that the "general welfare" clause of our Constitution has no meaning.

If that is wrong, then summarize WHAT specific power the phrase does convey to the federal government.

395 posted on 02/02/2002 1:46:32 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Southack
I read your 385. It was posted while I was typing. That's what was a nice clear post.
396 posted on 02/02/2002 1:51:48 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Southack
I gave my thoughts on the matter in #387. It's quite clear that the welfare clause has meaning, it was publicly claimed to be a justification clause by Madison. Madison publicly rejected the claims that it granted unenumerated powers. That was given by AJA in post #341. I gave my reasoning for that there also.

I acknowledge that in the present state of affairs, the clause is held to grant powers and I posted something regarding that. In that cut, there's mention of what limits the USSC has put on those unenumerated powers growing out of the welfare clause, that it "be welfare spending for the common benefit." It appears from this passage that the present state of affairs would allow unlimited powers.

Sorry, I got your #385 while I was writing. I was annoyed at the lack of substantiation and clarity presented, not Southack. I wouldn't have included the note to you if I had seen that first, I apologize for that.

397 posted on 02/02/2002 2:23:06 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

No problem. Thanks for the clarification.

398 posted on 02/02/2002 2:29:35 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Like most Libertarians, you've definitely contracted the all-or-nothing disease. By your logic the "general welfare" clause either has no meaning and can be disregarded as if it was never written into our Constitution, or else it has unlimited meaning and invalidates the rest of the Constitution.

It hasn't got anything to do with libertarianism; it has to do with simply reading the text. Your position, it seems, is that the text grants a limitless power to do everything in the general welfare, but doesn't really mean it. Some things are outside the federal sphere in spite of the lack of textual support for the exception.

If I'm wrong, then prove it. Assume, for the sake of discussion on this particular point, that you're right about the "general welfare power". Cite the specific text in the Constitution itself preventing Congress from legislating in the general welfare when it comes to alcohol, ect. If there are no such explicit exceptions, then it really is an either-or, not because I'm "bi-polar", but because the wording of the text forces it on us.

You would have us either throw out the phrase "general welfare" or throw out the rest of the Constitution.

It seems you have a short memory, so I'll repeat what I said about interpreting phrases rather than sentences: you can't do it. "General welfare", in isolation, means exactly nothing as far as legal obligation is concerned. You seem to think the mere appearance of the phrase, the disconnected words, implies some obvious legal implication regardless of whether it says, "Congress shall have all power to legislate in the general welfare," or "Congress shall not have the power to do anything in the general welfare." As it happens, the Constitution says neither. You're the one looking at things in black and white here.

The general welfare clause does have meaning and does convey to our government some power, but that power is NOT unlimited. In alcohol, slavery, gambling, and secession are incontravertible examples of LIMITS and boundaries on the general welfare clause.

Where are those limits in the text?

In contrast, your views would either throw out the phrase "general welfare" as if it had never been written, or else throw out the rest of the Constitution as if it was all superfluous.

I've already said exactly what it means. You're trying to take the radical choice above, which is implied by your view of it, and impose it on mine. It doesn't fit. That choice, accepting the "general welfare clause" or accepting the rest of the Constitution, is a result of seeing it as a separate grant of power. If you get past this false view and see it as part of the grant of the power to tax, everything fits together nicely.

The general welfare, left without qualification, encompasses the entire legitimate sphere of government; so unless you can show from the text where certain subject areas are exempted (and I'm not holding my breath) your view, by logical necessity, gives every government power to the federal government, and the fact that such powers do not, in fact, belong to the federal government merely proves you wrong.

399 posted on 02/02/2002 5:01:32 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
I also happen to agree with takenoprisoner, that the Anti-Federalists were correct in their claim that it could and would be taken as a grant of unlimited unenumerated power.

Only by amateur government shills. The pros use the commerce clause.

"Any doubt remaining after Butler as to the scope of the General Welfare Clause was dispelled a year later in Helvering. There the Court defended the constitutionality of the 1935 Social Security Act, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. Justice Benjamin Cardozo summed up what has become controlling doctrine ever since: "Nor is the concept of the general welfare static.... What is critical or urgent changes with the times." "

I highly doubt anything from anyone who believes in "preamble powers", but if the ruling actually said that, then it means, by logical necessity, that there is nothing outside the sphere of federal authority. Any later decision upholding enumerated powers (United States vs. Morrison, for example) overturns it.

400 posted on 02/02/2002 5:14:18 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 441-445 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson