Libertarianism - What's the appeal?

[Darth Wong]

Libertarians and anti-war people are an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation. Anti-war people oppose war on moral grounds. Libertarians just don't want to pay the bills for it.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't know if all, or even the majority of Libertarians share this view...

I was referring to Rogue 9's ramblings that Japan is in a superior position to provide massive social services because it doesn't run a military...

[Patrick Degan]

And for the last bit, yes, government regulates things the Founders could not have dreamed of. The Founders knew there would be things they could not presently conceive; that's why they provided the amendment mechanism. What I'm advocating is that it be used, not that government suddenly step back into the role it held on September 17, 1787. That would be disastrous.

The Founders also worded the clauses with some non-specific language to allow a wide lattitude for interpretation of powers. The only things Congress and the Federal government are prohibited from doing are those things expressly spelled out in Article 1.9. It doesn't work the other way around and never has. This is why it isn't necessary to amend the Constitution for every eventuality.

[Darth Servo]

And for the last bit, yes, government regulates things the Founders could not have dreamed of. The Founders knew there would be things they could not presently conceive; that's why they provided the amendment mechanism. What I'm advocating is that it be used, not that government suddenly step back into the role it held on September 17, 1787. That would be disastrous.

Why is a Constitutional amendment even necessary in order to expand the scope of government? Was a Constitutional amendment necessary in order to create the motor vehicle licensing agencies, or the EPA?

Funny thing is its not. People seem to forget all about the "elastic clause"

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18

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

[Terralthra]

Why is a Constitutional amendment even necessary in order to expand the scope of government? Was a Constitutional amendment necessary in order to create the motor vehicle licensing agencies, or the EPA?

Because the Constitution specifically limits what powers the federal government has to legislate, execute, and adjudicate. Per your example, DMVs are state agencies, not federal, for just that reason. I have a California driver's license, my vehicle registration fees are paid to California. The Full Faith and Credit clause is what allows me to drive my vehicle legally into Nevada or Oregon.

The EPA falls fairly easily under I.18.1, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" or the commerce clause, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;".

[Darth Wong]

Why is a Constitutional amendment even necessary in order to expand the scope of government? Was a Constitutional amendment necessary in order to create the motor vehicle licensing agencies, or the EPA?

Because the Constitution specifically limits what powers the federal government has to legislate, execute, and adjudicate. Per your example, DMVs are state agencies, not federal, for just that reason. I have a California driver's license, my vehicle registration fees are paid to California. The Full Faith and Credit clause is what allows me to drive my vehicle legally into Nevada or Oregon.

The EPA falls fairly easily under I.18.1, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" or the commerce clause, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;".

Why should anyone give a fuck about these oh-so-precious divisions between federal and state jurisdiction that people harp on endlessly about? It's still the government legislating your activity, isn't it?

[Terralthra]

Why should anyone give a fuck about these oh-so-precious divisions between federal and state jurisdiction that people harp on endlessly about? It's still the government legislating your activity, isn't it?

Do you really need me to spell out for you the argument behind Federalism and the separation of powers among hierarchical entities? I mean, Canada has a Federalist system too, with a similar split of Federal (Parliamentary) and Provincial powers. The only significant difference between the systems is that under the US Constitution, unspecified powers are retained by the States and the people, while under the Canadian Constitution, residual powers are kept by the Federal government, but it may only exercise them during wartime.

I mean, yes, it's still the government regulating activity, but you could also say the same thing about a dictator and Parliament: as long as they take the same governmental actions, it's ok if the dictator rules by military fiat, right?

[Gerald Tarrant]

Why should anyone give a fuck about these oh-so-precious divisions between federal and state jurisdiction that people harp on endlessly about? It's still the government legislating your activity, isn't it?

I've noticed a couple of advantages for stronger states.

The first is from a social justice standpoint. If a state enacts a policy which is unjust or particularly hard on some individuals, they can switch states more easily than they can switch countries.

The second is that they're actually kind of useful for various policy experiments. California's experiment with power deregulation was a disaster. Now imagine a similar proposal had been enacted all over the country.

Also consider the S-Chip program. Federal money is distributed to the states to assist children who are too far above the poverty line to qualify for medicare/medicaid. But their families don't have enough to afford good health insurance. The cutoff was something around 200% of poverty. In New Jersey that was $83,000 for a family of 4 (IIRC)*. In Oklahoma that might be in the 40-50k range for a family of 4. In America the Federal government never seems to be able to handle those sorts of distinctions that well, in my experience the states have always been more adaptable to their own local conditions. I'm not sure that the same level of local adaptability or policy experimentation will occur if States become less powerful or lose some of their traditional jurisdiction.


*I believe those were the numbers I heard in the furor about President Bush's veto of the S-Chip funding increase. As an aside, I was always a fan of the President's alternative; making insurance premiums deductible up to something like 15,000 dollars of income.

[The Yosemite Bear]

because it's easier to make a state into an ann rynd haven then it is a federal governement, despite such glaring flaws to their logic as a 14th amendment, they can't just legislate anything they want into statelaw. Though the decriminalized Marijana and no other national flags allowed laws in certain states tend to give them hope.

[Darth Wong]

Why should anyone give a fuck about these oh-so-precious divisions between federal and state jurisdiction that people harp on endlessly about? It's still the government legislating your activity, isn't it?

Do you really need me to spell out for you the argument behind Federalism and the separation of powers among hierarchical entities? I mean, Canada has a Federalist system too, with a similar split of Federal (Parliamentary) and Provincial powers.

No, but you do need to spell out for me what difference it makes for Rogue's moronic "limit government by the Constitution" bullshit, since it's nothing but a nitpick to point out that the DMV is local government. The DOT is federal, so is the NTSB, etc. So please dispense with the nitpick and address the point. Which is (in case you ignored it, which I suspect you did) that government routinely expands to regulate new things, and no Constitutional amendment is necessary.

The only significant difference between the systems is that under the US Constitution, unspecified powers are retained by the States and the people, while under the Canadian Constitution, residual powers are kept by the Federal government, but it may only exercise them during wartime.

I mean, yes, it's still the government regulating activity, but you could also say the same thing about a dictator and Parliament: as long as they take the same governmental actions, it's ok if the dictator rules by military fiat, right?

Oooooh, you can spout trivia about your system of government which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, and then top it off with a strawman too! Congratulations, moron.

[Scottish Ninja]

Funny thing is its not. People seem to forget all about the "elastic clause"

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18

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

Of course, this too is debatable - although historically the US government has taken a loose view of the Constitution, Jefferson threw a fit when Hamilton proposed a national bank and insisted that an amendment was necessary.

Still, this was coming right out of the Articles of Confederation period - the closest the US got to being a libertarian state, and plenty of people were wary of increased government power.

Most people will tell you that it didn't work out too well.

[brianeyci]

Human beings have certain inalienable rights by virtue of being human beings.

That is, in a nutshell, the libertarian position. I don't know how you see otherwise; the entire structure is built around the idea of individual rights to life, liberty, and property. What did you think it was?

You asked me how I was to determine which individuals to "hurt" (note: more perjorative words for paying your fucking taxes) and which ones to harm. I point out that medical care is necessary for all human beings because it's a human right and I know exactly who to "hurt" or force to pay taxes. Force those who have medical care to pay for those who do not have medical care. And you agree? Is that supposed to be a concession?

That's the most infuriating thing about libertarians. They don't understand what their own position entails. No, libertarianism is not liberalism or humanism. It is the premise that individual benefit is more important than the collective, and that is inherently wrong, no matter how much you try and deny the collective exists. It is more than just the sum of its parts, and you can do more with a collective, no matter how much you try and deny it. Pooling resources to accomplish a task will always be more efficient than individuals paying for their own crap, and if so why praise individualism the way libertarians do? Because they're selfish pricks who don't want to pay for what they don't use.

You can deny the selfish all you want, but it's the end result of praising individualism over collectivism, individual benefit over collective benefit. Deal with it.

As for the German and Japanese governments, no, if they were smaller they wouldn't do the same things, because they wouldn't have the authority to do them.

What a fucking load of crap. You want government to be powerless? Is that the euphemism libertarians use? So that's what "smaller government" means, powerless government . Does it enter your puny brain that Germany has a democratically elected government and the people want supression of Nazism?

Smaller does not mean less authority dickweed. A single despot with an army can enslave his nation. Libertarians automatically assume large government is tyrannical and small government has less power so they're less prone to tyranny, but where do they pull that shit from? Where the fuck do they get the idea that less government bureaucracy and less civil servants makes less of a chance of tyranny?

[Terralthra]

No, but you do need to spell out for me what difference it makes for Rogue's moronic "limit government by the Constitution" bullshit, since it's nothing but a nitpick to point out that the DMV is local government. The DOT is federal, so is the NTSB, etc. So please dispense with the nitpick and address the point. Which is (in case you ignored it, which I suspect you did) that government routinely expands to regulate new things, and no Constitutional amendment is necessary.

No, I did not ignore it, I addressed it. The Constitution limits the power of the Federal government, so anything it expands to regulate must fall under that aegis. Of the examples you gave, one fell under the power the Federal government already has, the other does not, and is therefore done by the states. The NTSB and the DOT both regulate matters of of inter-state commerce. The NTSB regulates cars that are made in one state and sold in many, while the DOT regulates vehicles that carry goods across state lines. While Congress does regulate new areas frequently, the other side of the coin is that the Supreme Court frequently rules on these laws, and overturns them if they are not within the scope of powers vested in the Federal government to legislate.

Some non-radical libertarians (there are a few, I'm not one of them) and most smaller-government wankers believe that since you have more of a voice within a local government, it's considerably less likely to abuse the powers with which it is entrusted. Since it's less likely to turn tyrannical with power, it can be vested with more and different powers than a monolithic, faraway Federal government.

Oooooh, you can spout trivia about your system of government which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, and then top it off with a strawman too! Congratulations, moron.

It was an argument by analogy. To the people who wrote our constitution (and visibly evident in the issues of executive power wielded by Bush today), the Federal government is inherently more capable of tyranny than a local government. The Constitution therefore deliberately limits its power, and explicitly says that any power not mentioned is for the States and local governments, not the Federal. That is relevant to the question you asked.

[SirNitram]

The assumption that the Federal government is more easily given over to tyranny is, frankly, absurd. One party.. Particularly one that's been preaching eliminationist rhetoric and extremist economic/social policies for decades.. Has a harder time holding onto D.C. than it does many local levels. There are cities and some states where one party rule is the norm, not the exception of the 21st century's first decade.

[Lusankya]

Libertarians and anti-war people are an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation. Anti-war people oppose war on moral grounds. Libertarians just don't want to pay the bills for it.

I briefly discussed the idea of the armed forces with a Libertarian once, and he had this whacko idea that you could get rid of the entire army and replace it with a bunch of nukes. Then if anyone made any agressive move against your nation, then you would nuke their capital city. I tried explaining to him the virtue of a proportional response, but he seemed to think that the threat of nuclea

It's worth noting, though, that Japan's government has a lot more resources free to do what it does because it doesn't maintain a standing military.

Just a nitpick, but you do realise that Japan's 'non-standing military' has approximately 250 thousand members, don't you?

It was an argument by analogy. To the people who wrote our constitution (and visibly evident in the issues of executive power wielded by Bush today), the Federal government is inherently more capable of tyranny than a local government. The Constitution therefore deliberately limits its power, and explicitly says that any power not mentioned is for the States and local governments, not the Federal. That is relevant to the question you asked.

I think you'll find that the problem there has a lot more to do with the way the institution is set up, as well as various social issues that are current at the time, than with the fact that it's at a federal level. You can have autocratic people at any level of society, it's just that there comes to a certain point where they're just called bullies

[Keevan_Colton]

Hm...yes...inalienable human rights:
Life!
Liberty!
STUFF!!!

Are you on fucking crack or something Rogue? Since when has STUFF been a human right? Sure, you might get food and shelter into the STUFF category, but they're also basic essentials of the life section, so they're covered anyway...do you really feel that a 72" plasma screen TV is an inalienable human right?

Or is it just some stuff that is an inalienable right and not all stuff?

[Darth Wong]

No, but you do need to spell out for me what difference it makes for Rogue's moronic "limit government by the Constitution" bullshit, since it's nothing but a nitpick to point out that the DMV is local government. The DOT is federal, so is the NTSB, etc. So please dispense with the nitpick and address the point. Which is (in case you ignored it, which I suspect you did) that government routinely expands to regulate new things, and no Constitutional amendment is necessary.

No, I did not ignore it, I addressed it. The Constitution limits the power of the Federal government, so anything it expands to regulate must fall under that aegis. Of the examples you gave, one fell under the power the Federal government already has, the other does not, and is therefore done by the states. The NTSB and the DOT both regulate matters of of inter-state commerce. The NTSB regulates cars that are made in one state and sold in many, while the DOT regulates vehicles that carry goods across state lines. While Congress does regulate new areas frequently, the other side of the coin is that the Supreme Court frequently rules on these laws, and overturns them if they are not within the scope of powers vested in the Federal government to legislate.

That's legalistic bullfuckery and you know it. If you honestly think that regulating the kind of cars you can build in America is what the Founding Fathers would have considered "interstate commerce", you're fooling yourself. The fact is that they never imagined half the shit a modern government would do, and there's no reason to constrict modern government to whatever they would have wanted.

Some non-radical libertarians (there are a few, I'm not one of them) and most smaller-government wankers believe that since you have more of a voice within a local government, it's considerably less likely to abuse the powers with which it is entrusted. Since it's less likely to turn tyrannical with power, it can be vested with more and different powers than a monolithic, faraway Federal government.

So the last time you E-mailed your state governor, he replied to you?

Oooooh, you can spout trivia about your system of government which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, and then top it off with a strawman too! Congratulations, moron.

It was an argument by analogy. To the people who wrote our constitution (and visibly evident in the issues of executive power wielded by Bush today), the Federal government is inherently more capable of tyranny than a local government. The Constitution therefore deliberately limits its power, and explicitly says that any power not mentioned is for the States and local governments, not the Federal. That is relevant to the question you asked.

Tell me, who was it who protected the civil rights of individuals better during the Civil War? Oh yeah, the Federal government. And who was it who did the same thing during the Civil Rights movement, even going so far as to threaten an armed standoff with a state governor over school integration? Oh yeah, the Federal government. Care to explain to me one more time how you know that the Federal government is inherently more prone to tyranny than state government, when historical example says the opposite?

[Terralthra]

That's legalistic bullfuckery and you know it. If you honestly think that regulating the kind of cars you can build in America is what the Founding Fathers would have considered "interstate commerce", you're fooling yourself. The fact is that they never imagined half the shit a modern government would do, and there's no reason to constrict modern government to whatever they would have wanted.

I don't think they had specifically that in mind, no, but they almost certainly had "making a product in one state and selling it another state" in mind.

Luckily for the U.S. Government:

1) they phrased it vaguely enough that it is applicable to current situations regardless of what they specifically may have envisioned
2) they created, at the same time, a body of government whose sole purpose is to interpret their vague phrasing in light of modern developments and
3) they made it an amendable document so that if the federal government had to regulate something that didn't fall under one of the powers already included, more could be added

So the last time you E-mailed your state governor, he replied to you?

Firstly, the only time I have recently written to a state official, it was to my state assemblyman, and yes, he did respond. Mike Honda. Great guy. He's since moved on to the House of Reps, and I've moved within California to a different district. Since moving, I've had no reason to write to my current Assemblywoman, Mary Hayashi, so I've no idea what her response to e-mail or letters might be.

Secondly, representing "answering to one's constituents" as "replying to e-mails personally" is a gross misrepresentation and oversimplification of the truth of the matter. Local and state governments are more answerable to an individual because the electorate is smaller, hence each person forms a greater fraction of the electorate. Also, bar some outlier examples, local and state government officials serve a geographically smaller area than a federal official, meaning an issue that affects a small region is more likely to have a drastic effect on a local or state election than a federal one.

Oooooh, you can spout trivia about your system of government which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, and then top it off with a strawman too! Congratulations, moron.

It was an argument by analogy. To the people who wrote our constitution (and visibly evident in the issues of executive power wielded by Bush today), the Federal government is inherently more capable of tyranny than a local government. The Constitution therefore deliberately limits its power, and explicitly says that any power not mentioned is for the States and local governments, not the Federal. That is relevant to the question you asked.

Tell me, who was it who protected the civil rights of individuals better during the Civil War? Oh yeah, the Federal government. And who was it who did the same thing during the Civil Rights movement, even going so far as to threaten an armed standoff with a state governor over school integration? Oh yeah, the Federal government. Care to explain to me one more time how you know that the Federal government is inherently more prone to tyranny than state government, when historical example says the opposite?

Well, had you read the portion of my post that you are quoting, you would know that I don't personally assume that to be true. The people who wrote the Constitution assumed it to be true because they'd just had a war against a centralized government which taxed them without representation and upon which they could exert little political power, due to its monolithic nature and the distances involved. Knowing the arguments and beliefs of the founders which went into the written Constitution doesn't mean I share them.

Also, I didn't say it was inherently more prone to it, I said it was inherently more capable of it. The government of Montana can only wiretap so many phones without warrants before it runs out of farmers to spy on, and the city council of Salt Lake City can only affect 200k people or so with a declaration of martial law, as opposed to the 400+ million phones tappable or 300+ million people under martial law if the Federal gov't takes such actions.

As to your examples, individual states abolished slavery before the Federal government did, by nearly 100 years, and individual states passed equal rights legislation (and had state supreme court cases regarding those laws) before the federal government did.

[K. A. Pital]

Also, I didn't say it was inherently more prone to it, I said it was inherently more capable of it.

The difference is in capabilities for abuse, not for inherent tendency towards abuse, moron. Both national and local governments can do the same abuse measures. The only difference is scale of operations, but not the nature or severity of said abuse.

[Terralthra]

Also, I didn't say it was inherently more prone to it, I said it was inherently more capable of it.

The difference is in capabilities for abuse, not for inherent tendency towards abuse, moron. Both national and local governments can do the same abuse measures. The only difference is scale of operations, but not the nature or severity of said abuse.

Are you reading impaired? I just said "it's inherently more capable of [tyranny]," just after saying it's not inherently more prone (hint: that means having a natural tendency towards) to [tyranny]. While I appreciate your desire to repeat me, I'd appreciate you not call me a moron after you paraphrase me. A simple citing of the quote would be sufficient.

[K. A. Pital]

Are you reading impaired? I just said "it's inherently more capable of [tyranny],"

Scale isn't a measure of tyranny, idiot. A totalitarian sect is just as opressive as a large government. Sure, it has smaller scale, but so? A vast multitude of small, but opressive governments is NOT inherently better than a huge, but opressive government, idiot. Therefore, "capabilities" arise merely from scale; it's entirely possible to have the same SCALE with many small opressive governments, and that also has examples in history.

So fuck you and your thesis - a multitude of small shithole governments equals a big shithole government.

[Terralthra]

Dissection of a single part of a post and then declaring victory is a Darkstar tactic. If you'd actually read the posts in question you'd discover that there is more to the claim that a federal government is more capable of tyranny than scale. That's one element of it. The other element is

Some non-radical libertarians (there are a few, I'm not one of them) and most smaller-government wankers believe that since you have more of a voice within a local government, it's considerably less likely to abuse the powers with which it is entrusted. Since it's less likely to turn tyrannical with power, it can be vested with more and different powers than a monolithic, faraway Federal government.

oh, and

Secondly, representing "answering to one's constituents" as "replying to e-mails personally" is a gross misrepresentation and oversimplification of the truth of the matter. Local and state governments are more answerable to an individual because the electorate is smaller, hence each person forms a greater fraction of the electorate. Also, bar some outlier examples, local and state government officials serve a geographically smaller area than a federal official, meaning an issue that affects a small region is more likely to have a drastic effect on a local or state election than a federal one.

Also, since in this particular case, the Federal government has control of the armed forces, while the states do not control any particular concentration of heavy arms (the State Defense Forces of the various states being small by comparison to the national military, and police being under municipal, not state, control), the Federal government is additionally more capable of dictatorial authoritarianism because it can actually attempt to rule by military fiat, something that a state government would have difficulty doing. In fact, the encouragement in the 2nd Amendment to organize militias was at least partially to make any declaration of martial law difficult to enforce, as a significant portion of the populace would be armed.

Your argument that a small totalitarian state is just as oppressive as a large one is an elegantly constructed strawman. My thesis was never that the Founders thought that the two are in any way different in the oppression they can potentially bring to bear on any particular citizen.

My thesis is that what the founders thought the Federal government of the system they were creating was more capable of becoming tyrannical than the State or local governments of that system. I'm not saying history bears that out, I'm saying that's what they thought, and that's why they made the system the way they did, and there's numerous pieces of historical evidence (namely the Founders' other writings cf. the Federalist papers) which bears out that thesis.

So fuck you.

[PeZook]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Individual states have as much capability to opress people as the Federal government! Your idea that they are closer to the people, and thus less likely to opress them is bullshit. Most American states have the size and population of countries themselves, and enough resources to easily start opressing away if they wanted it.

Do you really think that the state government of Texas, with 23 million people, is somehow closer to the individual than the Federal Government?

At a certain point, further increases in scale mean nothing.

And why do you think it matter what the Founding Fathers thought? It's completely irrelevant what they thought, what matters are results.

[K. A. Pital]

Dissection of a single part of a post and then declaring victory is a Darkstar tactic.

Ignoring the core of the argument and shifting goalposts is as well. But I will proceed to demolish your additional arguments, if you wish that so, although people in the thread already did a good job at that.

...that since you have more of a voice within a local government, it's considerably less likely to abuse the powers with which it is entrusted.

That's bullshit of the highest sort. "More of a voice"? Territorial representatives are just the same as national representatives, they just have a smaller territory to govern. Essentially in case of dismembering a large government, a small state would result. A small state with 100% identical electoral mechanisms, a military, and a police of it's own. The claim that it's less likely to abuse it's power is faltering in the face of the evidence that small governments can be as abusive as territorially large ones, and vice versa.

Also, since in this particular case, the Federal government has control of the armed forces, while the states do not control any particular concentration of heavy arms

"This particular case" rests on the basis that States are not independent governments, but merely territorial bodies of a larger government that assumes functions of protection and policing the territory, moron. If those functions are taken from the higher government, they would be installed at a lower level and you have 100% same potential for abuse. Idiot.

My thesis is that what the founders thought the Federal government of the system they were creating was more capable of becoming tyrannical than the State or local governments of that system.

So if history went another way and the national government would be relieved of military and police functions, do you think the resulting mini-states would have been less opressive?

I'm not saying history bears that out

If it does not bear that out, why the fuck even care about what those old men THOUGHT about small and large states?

[Rogue 9]

Mike, if I owe society everything, then precisely to whom am I to write the check? Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals; which ones do I owe? And if I owe all of them, I run into the problem of owing each less than a penny. As a practical matter, this is an impossibility, so what the fuck am I supposed to do about it?

Pay your taxes and stop whining about how it's "unjust". You can complain about how efficiently or effectively the government uses its money, but arguing that you have some kind of innate ownership on "the fruits of your labours" is nothing more than egocentric tripe. The root problem here is that you think compensation for work is some kind of cosmic justice. It isn't; it is merely an incentive to work, the same way that meat is an incentive for the killer whales to perform at Sea World. If the infrastructure required for this entire system requires money from participants in order to operate, so be it. They can't claim some kind of innate cosmic right.

Maybe it's my eyesight going bad here, but I'm having a very difficult time finding where I said taxation was unjust. I don't think compensation for work is some kind of cosmic law; I do know that if I wasn't compensated for my work I wouldn't do it. I daresay that a very large majority of the labor force feels the same way.

And for the last bit, yes, government regulates things the Founders could not have dreamed of. The Founders knew there would be things they could not presently conceive; that's why they provided the amendment mechanism. What I'm advocating is that it be used, not that government suddenly step back into the role it held on September 17, 1787. That would be disastrous.

The Founders also worded the clauses with some non-specific language to allow a wide lattitude for interpretation of powers. The only things Congress and the Federal government are prohibited from doing are those things expressly spelled out in Article 1.9. It doesn't work the other way around and never has. This is why it isn't necessary to amend the Constitution for every eventuality.

Then what is the purpose of the 9th and 10th Amendments? Several clauses in 1.8 grant very broad latitude, and that's perfectly fine, but the government can't just pull new powers from whole cloth without at least tenuously tying it into one of the existing powers in some way. I'm perfectly fine with a strong federal government, but there's a difference between strong and able to do whatever the fuck it wants.

That is, in a nutshell, the libertarian position. I don't know how you see otherwise; the entire structure is built around the idea of individual rights to life, liberty, and property. What did you think it was?

You asked me how I was to determine which individuals to "hurt" (note: more perjorative words for paying your fucking taxes) and which ones to harm. I point out that medical care is necessary for all human beings because it's a human right and I know exactly who to "hurt" or force to pay taxes. Force those who have medical care to pay for those who do not have medical care. And you agree? Is that supposed to be a concession?

I suppose it would be if I were an extremist libertarian, but I'm not. You're arguing against things I haven't said. If I were an extreme libertarian, the answer would be that everyone has a right to obtain healthcare, but nobody has the right to force someone else to obtain it for him. As for pejorative language, I note that you used the term "hurt" before I did; I was speaking specifically about what you said. To wit:

It means for the individual, as little as possible to hurt himself, which may hurt others and society at large.

You said it first, so don't bitch at me for following your cue when responding.

In any case, no, I don't have much objection to socialized healthcare on principle. I'm concerned about the execution of it as handled by a government that can't even keep track of multiple billions of dollars of its own finances, but that's completely off the topic.

That's the most infuriating thing about libertarians. They don't understand what their own position entails. No, libertarianism is not liberalism or humanism. It is the premise that individual benefit is more important than the collective, and that is inherently wrong, no matter how much you try and deny the collective exists. It is more than just the sum of its parts, and you can do more with a collective, no matter how much you try and deny it. Pooling resources to accomplish a task will always be more efficient than individuals paying for their own crap, and if so why praise individualism the way libertarians do? Because they're selfish pricks who don't want to pay for what they don't use.

Now who's using pejorative language? Pooling resources is more efficient; to a libertarian's mode of thinking, the pooling of resources should be voluntary. Fuck, people pool resources in capitalist societies in myriad ways all the time; it's called partnerships, companies, insurance, mutual funds, agricultural co-ops, and many other forms of voluntary associations that share resources. Trying to go it on your own just because the law allows you to do so is stupid.

As for the German and Japanese governments, no, if they were smaller they wouldn't do the same things, because they wouldn't have the authority to do them.

What a fucking load of crap. You want government to be powerless? Is that the euphemism libertarians use? So that's what "smaller government" means, powerless government . Does it enter your puny brain that Germany has a democratically elected government and the people want supression of Nazism?

Hell yes, I want government to be powerless to impose censorship. That doesn't mean I want it to be powerless in other areas. Incidentally, one of the best ways to cause an idea to gather strength is to force it underground. If the end of Nazism is what they want, the Germans are making a bad mistake.

Smaller does not mean less authority dickweed. A single despot with an army can enslave his nation. Libertarians automatically assume large government is tyrannical and small government has less power so they're less prone to tyranny, but where do they pull that shit from? Where the fuck do they get the idea that less government bureaucracy and less civil servants makes less of a chance of tyranny?

Yes, smaller does mean less authority. When I speak of smaller or larger government, I speak of the scope of government power, not the number of people on the government's payroll. Except in terms of wasted money in the form of having more employees than needed, that's a useless measure. Using the terms large and small government to describe more or less power held by the government is fairly common terminology.

Hm...yes...inalienable human rights:
Life!
Liberty!
STUFF!!!

Are you on fucking crack or something Rogue? Since when has STUFF been a human right? Sure, you might get food and shelter into the STUFF category, but they're also basic essentials of the life section, so they're covered anyway...do you really feel that a 72" plasma screen TV is an inalienable human right?

Or is it just some stuff that is an inalienable right and not all stuff?

Laugh it up, Keevan, but the right to hold property is one of the cornerstones of Western law and government. It's the basis of legal protections against unreasonable search and seizure, peacetime quartering of troops on private property, uncompensated eminent domain, excessive bail, and excessive fines, and it in combination with the rights to life and liberty inform several other basic civil rights. Ownership really is most of the law. The idea of property is the basis of a large portion of our civil liberties and most of almost any nation's body of laws. You might not like it, but it's there.