Why I am a libertarian, and you should be too

But the Constitution is inherently a limiting document. There is nothing in the Constitution that says "the federal government can't do this". So, by that perspective, the federal government can do anything.

What I am saying is that the Constitution Power vested to the federal government states what IS in their authority and what they CAN do. If it isn't listed or enumerated to them, then they aren't allowed to do it. That is why the 10th Amendment Exists.


That is why the Constitution says this:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.​

the 10th Amendment goes on to say:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

That is pretty clear that the Constitution GRANTS power of the federal government, limiting the authority of the Federal Government. All other issues not specifically listed are outside of the purview of the Fed and instead default to the States.

 

The word "Defense".

It says so right in the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; ​

There may be some validity to using the General Welfare clause as justification for this purpose.

I am a firm believer that the General Welfare clause is often mis-used in an effort to play social justice warrior, but in the case of famine or pandemic, I think it is appropriate.

Absolutely. Shooting somebody in the leg is definitely imposing on Person A's rights. Of course I believe this is the individual State's responsibility to enforce protection of Person A's rights, not the federal government.

The federal government ensures Person B is able to have that gun, as that is enumerated in the Constitution.

Absolutely. I would actually encourage Person A to return fire only aim for the chest in self defense.

No.

Due to unpreventable disease or accident? I don't believe he should be remunerated from the federal government, maybe the state through disability insurance or other policies and programs.

They are definitely not identical situations. They are similar outcomes.

Each situation is very very different. In the first example, somebody is actively trying to injure another person, which is obviously an infringement on his rights. I believe government is in place to protect Person A's right to not have his leg taken by another individual. But, again, I think this falls on the responsibility of State and Local governments and judicial systems.

In the second example, I don't believe that the United States of America (meaning the federal collective) has any responsibility to provide for the person who lost his leg to natural causes. The States maybe, if they so elect to pass such legislation, but definitely not the federal government.

 

Actually they do. Federal government is responsible for dealing with the enumerated powers. All the other stuff belongs to the states When federal government moves beyond the enumerated powers, what they do is unconstitutional, at least in my interpretation.

 

Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.

The problem is that the federal government shouldn't deal with individuals at all. That should be within the purview of the states. It should even get its revenue from the states. Most of what federal government does has no business being done in federal government. Protecting the country from aggression from other countries is definitely an appropriate role for federal government.

Our name is United States not Federal Government with Provinces.

 

Do you believe it is right because it is in the constitution or that it is in the constitution because it is right? If it is the former, then it seems to me arbitrary, if it is the latter, then it's not really an answer to the question of what the basis for believing it is.

Fair, I am not American, I have no feel for the distinction between State and Federal rights. My questions have to do with whether the authorities can or do exist, not what level they fall on in the American system. I guess you made a point out of calling defence against humans a federal concern, so I wouldn't mind hearing what it is that sends defence against disease down a different path of logic.

I agree that the situations are different as a whole, but it seems to me that they are not so different to person A. If authority truly came from concern about person A, then it seems to me two situations that look the same to person A should generate the same amount of authority to prevent them. Why is it that we consider not being shot in the leg a right, but not losing a leg to a disease not? In this situation, person A1 and A2 have done nothing differently, but somehow, person A2 "deserves" one leg less than person A1, or there is some justice in person A2 having one less leg than A1.

As such, it seems to me, the distinction isn't about the individual or the individual's rights (although we have managed to wrangle some terms to make it seem like it).

 

So if the founders had phrased it differently, or if you lived in a country in which the US constitution has no legal traction, the argument has no basis? I find it hard to believe that the constitution is the basis for the belief, it seems more like a particular phrasing with particular legal tie-ins.

When jcarlitesiu says

I believe that our federal authority to provide defense should be that which protects ourselves and our allies from aggression.​

do you consider that "dealing with individuals", when it comes to for instance law enforcement? I'm trying to get to the bottom of why defence against a human assailant is proposed to generate authority in a different way than defence against a for instance bacterial assailant. I'm struggling to see how a "dealing with individuals" angle resolves it.

 

And that's all you've got is a concept, more's the pity.

When you don't understand what liberty (the transcendent principle, not the concept) is to begin with, despotism is the inevitable result.

Yeah you.

I've been debating constitutional issues online for two decades, and this is the first I've heard of this idea.

That's not a mistake. Every federal law must be an exercise of an enumerated power, or of a power implied by an enumerated power.

So the way you figure it, Congress can impose a national dress code if it wants. Right?

 

Yeah, lol. The same concept our founding fathers had and the entire premise of our Constitution. You know, the founding that resulted in the fastest economic growth of a nation and the most freedom for its citizens the planet has ever seen. The audacity!

But I am supposed to believe that your views contrary to that concept are superior.

Blah blah blah. You have moved on from discussing the topic to discussing me, because your validation for your authoritarian position is contrary to the Constitution. Get back in topic, or dont waste your time. I dont need to be validated by some guy in the interwebz.

Congrats for finally after two years for being educated on the limitations of power of the federal government as framed by the Constitution.

Then again, this is like 8th grade civics mamaterial.

Lol. Implied. Wtf? Where did you pull that gem from?

Absolutley not, unless you care to present the clause from the Constitution that would give them that authority.

 

Yguy. I think it might benefit you to go back and read the thread and what has been said, specifically by me.

I think you might have misconstrued something that I said.

At this point, you are defending the federal government's power to regulate marriage, while simultaneously telling me that I am the one that thinks the fed have unlimited powers?

At this point, I'm not even sure what your position is.

Mine is simple. The federal government is dangerous to liberty and poses the biggest chance for a monopoly over the people. The Constitution was written to limit the fed's power and delegate anything not specifically within their purview to the states.

 

Not even close, obviously.

That's no concern of mine.

They are superior to anything that proceeds from your clearly perverted view of liberty, which of course is more properly termed license.

Then specifying any conflict between them will be no problem, so ante up already.

This might be a good time to learn to distinguish between comments addressed to you and those addressed to others, as people who don't can easily end up looking like morons. Just sayin'.

If you expect me to find that interesting, you'll have to be specific as to what that something is. More likely, you're misconstruing pretty much everything I've said, speaking of which:

Damned if I know where the hell you get that idea...

...but I'm pretty sure I know where you got this one, though it's just as bogus.

 

I keep talking about federal government and people answer with examples from local government. Apples and oranges.

 

I'm starting to think that many people dont understand that there are various levels of government.

 

Do you think the federal government should define marriage between a man and a woman and pass that legislation nationally?

 

I'm interested in the process by which government of any kind generates authority (or rather, libertarianism' s suggestion thereof). So far, it hasn't been meaningfully explained to me why the distinction between local or federal government is important. I do not live in any federated states, the distinction is meaningless to me unless you explain it.

You suggested something about the constitution, but you have yet to explain why we should think the constitution is right about that. When I asked for the distinction, instead of explaining, you just complained about my not understanding it.

 

Show me where I ever posted anything that implies anything of the sort.

 

Very simple. The states must deal with competition with other states. If a person doesn't like the way the state is managed it can move to another one. Just as competition is healthy for business it is for government as well. With federal government there is no competition and no remedy for incompetent management.

 

So, you're in a conversation that is based upon the powers of the federal government, throwing a **** fit about homosexual marriage, blabbering on about how its terrible and they shouldn't have the right to get married or have kids.

Then, I ask you point blank, if you believe that the federal government should outlaw it, and you backpeddle?

Look, it's clear to me that you are just here to argue for the sake of ****ing arguing.

When you have a point to make that is based upon the premise of the OP, then have at it. Until then, stop trying to derail the thread or play semantical little games and dishing out platitudes just to argue.

 

Not at all. You tried to shift the focus in that direction by replying to comments directed towards a third party, the context of which you obviously had nary a clue about.

Trust me, I understand your need to imagine indignation where there is none to be observed.

No, I challenged you to quote me saying anything that would reasonably prompt the question, thus giving you space to realize the inanity of the question. You're welcome.

I'm under no obligation to address anything in the OP. Don't like it, go snivel to someone who gives a damn.

Nothing is more predictable than an adversary accusing me of the very dissemblance he himself is guilty of, when I bring him dangerously close to the realization that he has no idea what the hell he's talking about.

 

That feels like a subjective assessment. I considered at one point to move to America, and I know many people who have moved from America, it seems to me the American system is in competition with other choices. For others, I'm sure the opposite is true, that there are people who cannot feasibly move out of their state for whatever reasons. Are you saying the authority of the state and the federal changes as transport and immigration of other countries changes?

You could argue that it has to do with the majority, or some average person, but again, that makes it less a concern about the individual.

 

The country was founded as a union of states, not a central power with provinces. While we have largely abandoned that concept, the states are still able to manage themselves and write their own laws. As an example, New York and California are losing citizens to other states because of high state taxes. My point was that if we don't like the level of federal taxes, we have no remedy. We have live with it. We have choices with regards to state laws.

My comments have nothing to do with other countries. Nobody is forced to move and, as you say, it may be impractical to move for one reason or another. But it is a choice and choice is about freedom.

I don't understand your meaning here.

 

Dude! The entire OP is based upon the distinction between federal and state powers.

You can take your holier than thou derailing attitude and do you know what with it. I don't have time to play with keyboard warriors that like to play games, derail threads, and stir the pot. Click "ignore". Run along and play with somebody that wants to play your ridiculous games.

You are right, you are under no obligation not to derail threads. Just under I am under no obligation to listen to your BS.

Want a topic about your moral desire to oppose homosexuality and gay marriage, go start your own thread. My guess, nobody will respond because of your antics.

 

Understand, that when this country was founded, our independence was driven almost fully by the lack of representation from our ruler, the King of England. A strong central government imposed on the colonies, not for that which was best for the colonies but what was good for the crown. We lacked representation in England and thus were subjected to the wills of the kind without recourse.

Our founders understood the inherent dangers that are posed by a strong central government. We could have been founded just as "America" a central body with provinces dividing the country up. Instead, we were founded as "The United States of America" a constitutional representative republic. This was important as the foundation of this founding provided less authority by the federal government and more power to the individual states for the sole purpose of ensuring that citizens interests nationally were better represented.

Each State in the United States sends representatives to Washington D.C. to serve in the Congress on behalf of the people of their district. The House of Representatives act on behalf of the People of their state, while the Senate acts on behalf of the State Governments.

The constitution was written to restrict the federal governments power in two ways. First, the separation of powers between the legislature (congress), the judiciary (the courts), and the executive branch (President). Second was the fact that the Constitution was written as a restrictive document in terms of the federal governments authority, rather than a restriction on people or States rights.

The Constitution was amended to go further and state in the 10th Amendment that any power not delegated to Washington, or forbidden to the States, shall be implemented at the State level and among the people.

In essence, the Constitution provides what the federal government is eligible to do (power), and everything else is not within their purview of authority.

In the United States, our country very much operates as if the States are their own countries bound by an allegiance and allied around the Federal Government. Very much like the European Union and the individual countries.

 

Moving outside of the US would be a remedy to high Federal taxes, wouldn't it? If it's a remedy to state taxes, it should be a remedy to Federal taxes.

My point is that your argument "we can move out of state but we can't move out of the federation" applies only to some people. There are people who can't move out of state and there are people who can easily move outside of the federation, and to those people, your argument won't stand up.

 

That's all well and good, but doesn't address my concerns.

If you defer to the constitution, then the question becomes either "why should we listen to the constitution?" or "why shouldn't we just amend whatever we want into the constitution?". Or, if we're being really picky, we can turn it the other way, "why should the things in the constitution be in the constitution?".

What is it about military defence that gets it into the constitution that doesn't get defence against bacteria into the constitution? It doesn't seem to be the individual, I have suggested a situation in which the individual is agnostic to the two (he can lose a leg to either).