Libertarianism III: It's All About Me and My Needs

Sand in the Gears ^ | 11/15/02 | Tony Woodlief

[wimpycat]

Nice try, but no cigar. You're still attempting bend word definitions to your will, but it won't do. What the word implies is not up to you. I thought you people shunned implied meanings in the Constitution anyway. That's the same door the gun-grabbers try to go through with their semantical gymnastics over the phrase "well regulated militia". I ought to be surprised at you using the same tactics used by those people, but I'm not.

Congress has the power to regulate foreign commerce. It can choose, through legislation, which countries it does business with and who it does not to do business with, how much, how often and when. That's just a fact. If you don't like it, if this glaring verity stands in the way of your arguments and rationalizations, that's not my problem.

[Demidog]

You're still attempting bend word definitions to your will, but it won't do.

You cannot regulate what you have banned. Furthermore, do you see any definition in the US Constitution which defines as a crime, trading with anyone?

This isn't about implications. It's about simple facts. The purpose for regulating commerce with foreign nations was simply so that no state could end up with an advantage over another state when drawing up trade agreements. It was NOT to eliminate trade with any particular nation.

I've explained this to Poobah but the government doesn't posess any power that it cannot derive by your consent. You first must posess the power for the government to use it. You nor I have the power to prevent anyone from trading with anyone else. Thus we cannot consent to anyone to use such a power.

If the government is using a power that you didn't first posess, then it is operating by force and fraud.

[Demidog]

It can choose, through legislation, which countries it does business with and who it does not to do business with, how much, how often and when. That's just a fact.

Nonsense. The government is not authorized anywhere in the constitution to "do business."

[wimpycat]

Furthermore, do you see any definition in the US Constitution which defines as a crime, trading with anyone?

Since the Constitution invests the Congress (elected by the consent of the governed) with the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, the Constitution leaves it to Congress to define the particular crimes. Treason is the only defined crime in the Constitution, but that doesn't prevent Congress or the state from passing laws which define other crimes and set consequences for committing such crimes.

[Demidog]

Treason is the only defined crime in the Constitution

Wrong. There are three crimes defined in the constitution and in every case, the Congress is given power to make laws which deal with those crimes. They are given no power in the constitution to even DEFINE crimes not listed already.

You don't have the power to tell your neighbor who he can trade with. And you can't give that power to the government if you do not posess it already.

Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the states and foreign nations. They do not have the power to eliminate trade. The word regulation should provide a clue but the fact that you cannot force anyone to stop trading is the nail in the coffin for this particular argument.

[xdem]

My choice is often to vote for a RINO who doesn't share my views, or a libertarian who shares many of my views.

As far as governance, it is immaterial who I vote for, since my views will not be represented in either case. The RINO doesn't share my views, while the libertarian isn't likely to be elected.

Therefore, I vote for the person who shares my views.

We are in this situation because too few people have the stones to stop voting for RINOs, not because a few more people are voting Libertarian.

[wimpycat]

They are given no power in the constitution to even DEFINE crimes not listed already.

The Constitution doesn't prohibit defining crimes not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

[Reagan Man]

>>>We are in this situation because too few people have the stones to stop voting for RINOs, not because a few more people are voting Libertarian.

I agree with you. There are a number of Rino's in the Congress, but there aren't many conservative Republican candidates around either. The first priority for those who lean towards the political rightwing, is to assure Democrats and their liberal incarnations are kept out of public office. Now that Republicans control the full Congress, it is important for party activists and conservative advocates to better educate the voters, in how to recognize the most conservative candidate available.

Remember, politics is a slow process.

Democrats must never be allowed to retake control of the House or the Senate. Conservatives and Republicans can't afford another political setback.

[Demidog]

The Constitution doesn't prohibit defining crimes not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

If you've read the tenth amendment you should know by now that the federal government was given explicit and listed powers. That's all they were given. No powers are implied. The crimes of Treason, Piracy and counterfeitting are all they have jurisdiction over and the Congress is limited in its legislative jurisdiction to the seat of the capital and territorial posessions.

It took a constitutional amendment to even provide the feds with the power to prohibit alcohol production. That is because they had no power to do that. (And it can be argued that the amendment itself was void before it was ratified but that's for another day).

[wimpycat]

Is it your position that sending a bomb through the U.S. mail across state lines is NOT against the law? That bank robbery is NOT against the law? That blowing up Federal property is NOT against the law?

[Demidog]

Is it your position that sending a bomb through the U.S. mail across state lines is NOT against the law?

No. Do you think that because a federal agency is used or that state lines are crossed that the crime doesn't exist until the federal government defines it as such?

[wimpycat]

So the Unabomber is being illegaly imprisoned?

[wimpycat]

If there is no federal law against an action or behavior, then it can't be against federal law. Likewise with state law.
You can't arrest and prosecute anybody for an act, if there is no law on the books against it. That goes for state and federal jurisdictions. Ex post facto, and all that.


So you think the Unabomber is illegally imprisoned?

[Demidog]

If there is no federal law against an action or behavior, then it can't be against federal law.

And this is supposed to prove that the federal government actually has authority to define other crimes why?

You can't arrest and prosecute anybody for an act, if there is no law on the books against it.

So you're saying that it's legal for a man in Arkansas to kill a man in Texas because there's no law preventing it?

[billybudd]

My point was simply that libertarians tend to criticise and seek to reverse government policy, as a way of expressing their politics. So, they look to the government for a solution in the sense that they expect the government to change in order to bring about a freer society. I'm arguing that this is backwards; most effort should be spent on educating people and attempting to change the culture at a very fundamental, philosophical level. In this way, a free society can develop from the bottom up. Changes in government policy would come later, but much easier and at less political cost. So basically, I'm arguing against libertarianism as a political party, but for it as a philosophical/ideological movement. Hope I clarified myself.

[Pay now bill Clinton]

Oh, and he quotes Murray Rothbard only in part on the strategy question: to read this dimwit, you'd never know that he's quoting from an essay wherein Rothbard constructs an entire theory of libertarian strategy.

Really? And just how is that strategy going? A quick glance at the scoreboard will tell you that this strategy is losing very badly.

Don't confuse the complete failure (ie. refusal) to ADOPT a strategy with a failure of the strategy itself. Now that neoconservative Republicans have control of all branches of government, anything that goes wrong from here on will not be the fault of the Democrats nor ESPECIALLY the fault of Libertarians (either ideologically or as a political party). In fact as far as any previous problems go, one might blame many political movements (including the communists). But libertarians are certainly NOT at fault given the complete unwillingness of either Democrats or Republicans (or YOU for that matter) to seriously entertain any of their proposals or ideas. Libertarians would be the LAST people to blame for the mess we're in today -- regardless of your opinion of their ideas.

[wimpycat]

So you're saying that it's legal for a man in Arkansas to kill a man in Texas because there's no law preventing it?

There is a law against it (laws don't necessarily "prevent" crime, by the way, only prescribe penalties for violating the laws)--murder is illegal in both Texas and Arkansas, according to state laws; there is no federal equivalent to state homicide law. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[rdb3]

Do you have a problem or problems with me or something? It appears that you do. I know one of these is reading comprehension.

Did I "blame" libertarians for anything at all? No, I didn't. Yet you come at me as if I did.

You need to chill with the labels.

Libertarians have tons of work to do. Look at the scoreboard.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[Demidog]

There is a law against it

There is a law against kidnapping in Texas as well. It isn't necessary that there be a federal law.

None of this really deals with the fact that Congress isn't given the power to define crimes other than the three listed in the constitution. (Excepting Washington DC of course).

[wimpycat]

Congress is given the power to define crimes in the Constitution and it exercises its power. If you disagree with that, too bad. Your disagreement doesn't change facts.

I think this all comes down to a disagreement in interpretation of Amendment X. And when there is disagreement, whose argument will prevail? Does your interpretation carry more weight than mine? Do you matter more than me? Do I matter more than you? So how are these interpretive disputes solved?-----why, the answer to that is given in the Constitution, too. Ta-daaaaah! The Judiciary Branch! The supreme Court, with the exceptions listed in Article III, section 2, shall have "appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, wich such exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

In other words, it's useless for you and I to be arguing back and forth over Congressional authority, because such questions have already been asked and answered, in the Constitution, under all three branches of government and the state governments, with the Supreme Court having appellate jurisdiction.

I'm rather glad you and I could disagree without tearing each other up. This is my last word on the subject. As you well know, unwritten law says women always get the last word, but if you would like to have it, whether you're male or female, you have my leave. :-)