Libertarians, the Constitution, and Contracts

[SVPD]

Ok, so I'm engaged in a debate with 3 libertarians, one of whom is a pothead, one is a rabid literalist, and one of whom is reasonably intelligent but never states a position... just attacks those of others, and lets his out in dribs and drabs

All this is in regard to the USSC decision on Greenhouse gasses

Basically these three assert that the Constitution is a contract between the federal government and the states and the southern states were perfectly justified in secession becaus the federal government somehow breached the contract. According to them the 10th amendment reserves secession as a power to the states, and they can do so at any time for any reason regardless of the Congressional power to put down insurrection.

They also alternate between arguing that the Constitution must be read absolutely literally and quoting Founding Fathers' inerpretations as authoritative despite the fact that they have no legal weight.

I've made several points:

1. When the Constitution says "general welfare" under powers of Congress it means welfare as we understand it now, not some 1787 definition that limited it t the security of state governments

2. It's not a contract; it's law, which it explicitly says, and in any case, if there are 13 possible parties to a contract, 9 of them signing it can't impose it on the other 4 (see ratification section)

3. Even if it is a contract, it's among the states who agree to set up a federal government to handle collective matters. The federal government does not ratify and is not a party to it, rather it is created by it.

4. The Southern States did not have any right violated by a prohibition on any more slave states. States have no Constitutional right or expectation that any common interest among them will be maintained at any level of voting strength, nor do they have any right to dictate that new states be added in any particular way. If a statutory law is passed regarding such matters, tough shit, they got to vote on it.

5. The 10th Amendment creates no power of secession; that would means states could come and go as they pleased which calls into serious question the point of creating a constitution in the first place.

Any opinions? (Damn, libertarians annoy the fuck out of me.)

[Patrick Degan]

You can start by continuing to point out that the contractual argument is plain bullshit. Contracts are structured to achieve a specific aim with terms delineating in exhaustive detail exactly what will and will not be permissable to the parties under the arrangement, the duration of the arrangement and the conditions which define the agreement's eventual termination.

The United States Constitution clearly is not a contract: it's language is brief and deliberately vague in several key portions of the document, and sets up an entire branch of government charged specifically with interpretation of the law under such language. There is no specific aim or finely detailed set of aims which serve as its object, and a limited number of specific prohibitions upon federal and state power under the constitution. There is no termination date nor set of conditions defining the dissolution of the constitution; indeed, the "agreement" is about as open-ended as you can get and presupposes not only that the Union will be ongoing but that more states will eventually add to it.

The Tenth Amendment does not create a specific power of secession. It is not specifically prohibited in the constitution, but nor is there a specific right of the states to it either —which is but one example of the degree of vagueness in the document and its interpretation. By that same token, there is no specific prohibition against the Congress acting as a national legislature or passing the laws which permit it to create and fund social agencies to pursue the aim rather unspecifically defined as "promoting the general welfare".

That also means, contrary to what Libertarians believe, that there really is nothing which legally, constitutionally, prevents Congress from nationalising key industries if it voted to do so. Or creating the FBI or a Dept. of Homeland Security or a Dept. of Education. Congress can't create a National Health Service? Oh yes it can. The IRS is unconstitutional? The 16th Amendment says otherwise.

Nor can they try to hide behind the Intent doctrine: in order to make that argument valid, they'd have to actually define the alleged exact meaning of the phrase "promote the General Welfare"; a subject on which the constitution itself is startlingly mum. There was certainly lively debate on the subject as well as others as outlined in The Federalist Papers, but in the constitution itself there is no specification of "General Welfare" many Libertarians claim is there which can be found. To try to actually yield that interpretation requires the ability to somehow read the minds of people who've been dead for 200 years.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I see there being a problem in calling it a "contract" because if th US government system (the constitution) were a contract, it would be a pretty defunct one, as any party could negate the agreement at will, at any time, for any reason, if the Founding Fathers were to allow wanton secession as per the 10th amendment. In what type of contract can any party, for any reason, renege?

The Constitution is supposed to be a binding agreement of union no one state can destroy at will. That's not a contract if you can. Wanton secession is essentially allowing parties to take their ball home if they don't like the rules that happen not to favour them at any given moment, regardless of their obligations otherwise. Imagine three people signing a contract, and one simply going "nope" when he feels like it, regardless of the stipulations in the contract. It quickly becomes pointless.

Why create a Constitutional "contract" agreement with specifically delegated powers, rules, regulation, etc. wherein any state can simply give the other state's and the federal government the bird or hold them hostage by threatening to leave?

In the constitution, there is a balance between state and federal government power, as each is delegated powers in the Constitution that the other may not violate. In the Constitution, for instance, the Federal government is specifically delegated several major powers, including the ability to conduct foreign policy, raise an army, etc. However, if any state can secede for any reason, then the states have the technical ability to ultimately circumvent any federal law, legally delegated to it or not, at will. There's no way to "enforce" a federal law, even if it's a legal one via the Constitution, because a state can simply circumvent it by using the "secession" card. Why would the Founding Fathers put powers into the government that are unenforceable and so easily negated if their whole goal was to create a multi-level system of checks and balances?

There can be no national body, which for all practical purposes the federal branch of the government is and was, even if it weren't stipulated. It cannot carry out foreign policy or it's domestic role in upholding the Bill of Rights if it can't make its own constituent parties follow the Constitutionally delegated powers.

[SVPD]

Thanks for the help.

The discussion has basically moved now to whether there was an intent of the South to secede peacefully, specifically the situation at Fort Sumter and whether it indicates violent intent by the South. I've pointed out threats of violence prior to the secession vote upon the transfer of 40 rifles out of a federal arsenal in the city, and the outcry when Anderson's men began clearing sand dunes away from the landward side of Fort Moultrie.

My opponents insist that Anderson was trying to provoke a fight by moving to Sumter and dominating the harbor, and have included such flimsy evidence as the fact that he left Moultrie's cannons behind (despite having no means to transport them across the harbor) and patrols that he would ahve had to avoid at night (despite the fact that he was crossing water).

I've also seen them repeatedly assert that no militia had yet been activated, but they have ignored the fact that the Star of the West, transporting provisions to Sumter, and totally unarmed, was fired upon by cades from The Citadel, the only trained artillerists available... they also haven't explained who is conducting these patrols or doing the work on the Morris Island battery if there is no activated militia. It's also been asserted that the Star of the West was carrying cannon, but I have pointed out that this would have been pointless as Anderson lacked enough men to man what he had.

[Wyrm]

My opponents insist that Anderson was trying to provoke a fight by moving to Sumter and dominating the harbor, and have included such flimsy evidence as the fact that he left Moultrie's cannons behind (despite having no means to transport them across the harbor) and patrols that he would ahve had to avoid at night (despite the fact that he was crossing water).

If Anderson was trying to provoke a fight by his Sumter stunt, then he obviously wasn't trying to succeed peacefully, is he?

[SVPD]

My opponents insist that Anderson was trying to provoke a fight by moving to Sumter and dominating the harbor, and have included such flimsy evidence as the fact that he left Moultrie's cannons behind (despite having no means to transport them across the harbor) and patrols that he would ahve had to avoid at night (despite the fact that he was crossing water).

If Anderson was trying to provoke a fight by his Sumter stunt, then he obviously wasn't trying to succeed peacefully, is he?

Anderson was the commander of the Union forces, so he wasn't trying to secede at all.

[Patrick Degan]

Thanks for the help.

The discussion has basically moved now to whether there was an intent of the South to secede peacefully, specifically the situation at Fort Sumter and whether it indicates violent intent by the South. I've pointed out threats of violence prior to the secession vote upon the transfer of 40 rifles out of a federal arsenal in the city, and the outcry when Anderson's men began clearing sand dunes away from the landward side of Fort Moultrie.

My opponents insist that Anderson was trying to provoke a fight by moving to Sumter and dominating the harbor, and have included such flimsy evidence as the fact that he left Moultrie's cannons behind (despite having no means to transport them across the harbor) and patrols that he would ahve had to avoid at night (despite the fact that he was crossing water).

I've also seen them repeatedly assert that no militia had yet been activated, but they have ignored the fact that the Star of the West, transporting provisions to Sumter, and totally unarmed, was fired upon by cades from The Citadel, the only trained artillerists available... they also haven't explained who is conducting these patrols or doing the work on the Morris Island battery if there is no activated militia. It's also been asserted that the Star of the West was carrying cannon, but I have pointed out that this would have been pointless as Anderson lacked enough men to man what he had.

Provoke a fight? To buy into that sort of logic, you have to assume that the Southerners were obliged to open fire on Anderson simply because he'd bottled himself up in the fort. There was no requirement for an attack. Even with the resupply mission, it would have been a question of waiting until Anderson and his men would have been forced to quit Charleston harbour.

No, Anderson did not fire first, and Beauregard did not have to touch off the first shots. Sumter was effectively neutralised.

[SVPD]

I've also seen them repeatedly assert that no militia had yet been activated, but they have ignored the fact that the Star of the West, transporting provisions to Sumter, and totally unarmed, was fired upon by cades from The Citadel, the only trained artillerists available... they also haven't explained who is conducting these patrols or doing the work on the Morris Island battery if there is no activated militia. It's also been asserted that the Star of the West was carrying cannon, but I have pointed out that this would have been pointless as Anderson lacked enough men to man what he had.

Provoke a fight? To buy into that sort of logic, you have to assume that the Southerners were obliged to open fire on Anderson simply because he'd bottled himself up in the fort. There was no requirement for an attack. Even with the resupply mission, it would have been a question of waiting until Anderson and his men would have been forced to quit Charleston harbour.

No, Anderson did not fire first, and Beauregard did not have to touch off the first shots. Sumter was effectively neutralised.[/quote]

Apparently by their logic moving to Sumter is an aggressive move simply because it's inconvenient for the Charlestonians, regardless of the fact that Sumter had only about 1/3 of it's cannon and Anderson could man all that were there.

[Wyrm]

Anderson was the commander of the Union forces, so he wasn't trying to secede at all.

One of these days I need to brush up on US history.

[wolveraptor]

These people sound more like confederate apologists than libertarians. What you could do is point out the inherent hypocrisy in expecting slaves who have crossed state borders to be subject to their home states' laws while standing behind a "states' rights" agenda as justification to secede.

[Flagg]

Libertarianism sounds great until you realize that it leads to a corporate controlled state that can be as opressive as it wants to be. Hardcore libertarianism is opposed to things like public schools, public roads, public recreational areas, and public land. They are opposed to such horrible things as the FDA, the FAA, and the EPA. They favor allowing employers to discriminate against employees for whatever reason, as well as allowing businesses to bar access to anyone for any reason. Basically, they want to go back to the 18th century.

[Patrick Degan]

The funny thing is that libertarianism was originally a socialist movement which had its origins in the 1850s and that in the rest of the world outside of America, "libertarianism" is synonymous with anti-capitalism.

[Uraniun235]

Libertarianism sounds great until you realize that it leads to a corporate controlled state that can be as opressive as it wants to be. Hardcore libertarianism is opposed to things like public schools, public roads, public recreational areas, and public land. They are opposed to such horrible things as the FDA, the FAA, and the EPA. They favor allowing employers to discriminate against employees for whatever reason, as well as allowing businesses to bar access to anyone for any reason. Basically, they want to go back to the 18th century.

Honestly, at this point I think "libertarian" is almost a worthless word; I've seen people bluntly admit that they've used "libertarian" as a new word for "anarchist" just so they can dodge the negative connotations of the word "anarchist". There's "libertarians" that think government-run police are okay and there are "libertarians" that think the police should be a private corporation.

I'm still not sure who's more retarded; the anarchists who think human nature would be peachy-keen and everyone would get along just fine if it weren't for The Man, or the free market worshipers who think a society in which every service was rendered by a for-profit business would get along just fine.

[Darth Wong]

It sounds like SVPD is arguing with Confederate apologists, which does not bode well for their honesty. I wouldn't expect such a discussion to go anywhere because Confederate apologists are as loony as they come.

[His Divine Shadow]

The funny thing is that libertarianism was originally a socialist movement which had its origins in the 1850s and that in the rest of the world outside of America, "libertarianism" is synonymous with anti-capitalism.

Europe chiming in and no it isn't, libertarianism is just the coined american term for liberalism since that got fucked over in the 50's by conservatives or something. Nothing wrong with libertarianism, to a degree. As with most things really.

[starfury]

Sometimes I feel thanks to all the muddling that Anarchists and libertarians are too sides of the same coin, Anarchist being of the left we think that if people are left alone would not let base insctintst take over and Libertarians their counterparts on the right who think the same thing, only with a more emphasis on private property and think again that human nature will restrain itself without laws and goverment to keep the more base excesses in Check.