Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
235 years of case law now, I suppose. I think that there are quite a few controversial court decisions even at the highest levels that have greatly affected our lives and not all of them are good decisions. The Dred Scott v Sandford case comes to mind as a terrible court decision. However, precedent was set and it contributed to splitting the country in two.
I would hope that a judge would go back to the original documents first and foremost, rather than extrapolating based on court cases throughout history. It's good to be mindful of previous court decisions, but making defacto-laws by setting court precedent was hardly the intended purpose of the judicial branch.
The point is, the Constitution is a straightforward document. If a power isn't clearly given to the Federal Government in that document, it's somewhat dubious of them to assume that power. I don't deny that they've won court decisions, but in many cases I think that those decisions poor ones. The arguments are usually made based on the commerce clause. The intention of the commerce clause was to give the Federal Government the power to regulate trade of goods between states. That original intention has morphed into all kinds of things that affect our lives, from 55mph speed limits to Federal Regulation of food and medicine (even within states).
Regardless the until the court says otherwise the court's decision is in fact the Constitutional decision. It is spelled out in article 3 more or less that the Federal courts decide how the Constitution applies in various cases. So essentially whether someone not at the Federal bench thinks something is a poor decision doesn't really matter, Constitutionally speaking, unless they can convince someone on the Federal bench they are right. Essentially if the Federal courts say the FDA is Constitutional then the FDA is Constitutional until a case comes up that says otherwise.
I have found that most people who expound on the Constitution don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. Most Constitutional issues have been fleshed out in over 200 years of case law, which most people haven't scratched the surface of.
There has NEVER been any corruption in the judiciary.
There has NEVER been any corruption in the judiciary.
It doesn't matter. The judiciary is a separate co-equal branch and that is their power with the check being that if Congress and the President take enough umbrage at it they can, or can threaten to appoint and confirm 10 new SC judges to fix the problem.
National Defense: National defense is necessary. However, maintaining permanent bases in foreign countries doesn't seem defensive, but sure costs a mint. Sending troops to fight wars in foreign lands doesn't make you many friends, either.
Every war we don't have to fight because we took action disarm and disable our enemies is a bargain. It's difficult to sell that concept because the peaceniks can always produce real numbers to substantiate their claim that an active policy of deterrence is expensive and also costs us friends whenever we engage a potential foe. This is made far worse when the policy of proactive defense is successful since the absence of an attack is perceived by slow learners to indicate the absence of an enemy. This is the most important factor in Bush's political downfall. It doesn't mean he was wrong to take the fight to the enemy or potential enemy, but without another attack, he is perceived as being wrong nonetheless.
Foreign Aide: Foreign aide amounts to taking money from Americans and giving it to dictators.
Really depends on the specific case.
Environmental Issues: The US Government is the single biggest polluter in the country. Most environmental issues can be dealt with through property rights since property owners have the biggest stake in preventing pollution on their property. Even most air pollution could be dealt with through property rights: If someone pollutes the air and they do you or your property harm, they are liable for the damages. The government should not be immune from pollution liability.
Pollution on my property can easily become pollution on your property and my ability to cover your losses may be far exceeded by the damage I've done.
Gay Marriage: The government shouldn't require a license to be married in the first place. If the government didn't issue marriage certificates, this would be a non-issue. Any church (or Vegas wedding venue) who would be willing to marry gay couples would do so.
Most Americans still favor civil unions for gay couples seeking equal legal standing with married couples. Not everyone believes a single standard of normal should exist, but I believe we are lost without it. Accommodations can be made for the exception, but destroying every standard of commonality is the wrong approach.
The Drug War: State and Federal Governments have spent billions if not trillions of dollars enforcing bans on certain substances in the United States. They've made sick people criminals and made criminals millionaires. There are plenty of substances much more dangerous than illegal drugs that are perfectly legal; we'd all be better off if the government didn't take our money from us and use it to put sick people in the clink.[/quote]
For a lot of "sick people" who have been "put in the clink", it was the one thing that came between the drugs that were certain to take their lives and destroy those around them and an opportunity to start fresh. Some people are so wealthy and powerful that they are effectively above the laws prohibiting the use of street drugs and the abuse of prescription medication already. If you wonder what life would be like in America without someone saying no to other people's drug use, take the example of John Belushi, John Bonham, Kieth Moon, Kurt Cobain, Chris Farley, Anna Nichole Smith, Micheal Jackson and Brittany Murphy. No one told them no.
Socially they are looney tunes and they LOVE their recreational drugs.
I argued with one about why it wasn't right to give drugs to their young children.
I think the movie "Escape From New York" would be the Libertarian Utopia.
Hundreds of millions of parents give drugs to their young children. Why do you disagree with this?
235 years of case law now, I suppose. I think that there are quite a few controversial court decisions even at the highest levels that have greatly affected our lives and not all of them are good decisions. The Dred Scott v Sandford case comes to mind as a terrible court decision. However, precedent was set and it contributed to splitting the country in two.
I would hope that a judge would go back to the original documents first and foremost, rather than extrapolating based on court cases throughout history. It's good to be mindful of previous court decisions, but making defacto-laws by setting court precedent was hardly the intended purpose of the judicial branch.
The point is, the Constitution is a straightforward document. If a power isn't clearly given to the Federal Government in that document, it's somewhat dubious of them to assume that power. I don't deny that they've won court decisions, but in many cases I think that those decisions poor ones. The arguments are usually made based on the commerce clause. The intention of the commerce clause was to give the Federal Government the power to regulate trade of goods between states. That original intention has morphed into all kinds of things that affect our lives, from 55mph speed limits to Federal Regulation of food and medicine (even within states).
You can blame Lincoln for this dramatic turn of events. He gets the most credit for overturning the founding father's vision of a very limited federal government. Lincoln did more damage to this country than all the other presidents combined.
Environmental Issues: How would the courts handle a case where a big company like Monsanto can pollute a neighboring farm with genetically engineered seeds and they sue the polluted for damages? Environmental regulations are primarily designed to force polluters to internalize those costs instead of spinning them off to the public.
Wars: I do not believe in WAR. I believe in Pest Control.
Complain all you want, but the country adopting libertarian economic principles is a foregone conclusion. The fact that libertarians are even under attack is proof that they are now seen as a threat to the two major partys sharing of power.
I can't speak for all Libertarians, but I think these views are pretty mainstream in the libertarian community. I wonder what people think of them.
The Constitution: The US Government should exist within the limits of its Constitution. Powers not explicitly given to the Federal Government should fall upon the states or upon the people themselves. Using the commerce clause to regulate things that aren't explicitly interstate commerce issues is generally done merely to give the government an excuse to claim power outside of its original charter without the hassle of amending the Constitution. This is unethical and improper.
Yes, but what about civil rights and abolishing segregation?
I agree that we should follow the constitution, because the interpretive view of the constitution has gotten us into a lot of trouble. But its also done some great things for us. The Louisana purchase, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780
Individual Liberty: Freedom comes first. Libertarians would rather be a free pauper than a rich slave. That's not saying that we want to be poor, but rather that we put a high value on individual liberties. Actually, Libertarians believe that more freedom results in more prosperity for everyone. There are a few Nobel prize winning economists that seem to agree.
Not true at all. You can have liberty without being poor. Giving up freedoms makes one poorer, not richer. For instance, I could make a killing growing marijuana legally if it were legal. I could make my own liquor if it were legal for me to do so. Under the current laws and regulation, that is prevented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780
Taxes/Government Spending: Taxes and government spending are far too high and far too localized in Washington. Government should be as small as possible and as local as possible. There's no need for people thousands of miles away to dictate how you live.
Libertarians would favor a flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage of taxes. Less tax code would be something a libertarian would support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780
Recessions/Depressions: Recessions/depressions are generally caused by mismanagement of the money supply by the Federal Reserve. Prior to the Federal Reserve, financial crises were generally shorter and less severe. See mises.org for a lot of great information about the economics of the boom/bust cycle.
Really? There was no federal reserve before or during the depression. The subsequent recessions could be viewed as prevented depressions, possibly helped by the fed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780
National Defense: National defense is necessary. However, maintaining permanent bases in foreign countries doesn't seem defensive, but sure costs a mint. Sending troops to fight wars in foreign lands doesn't make you many friends, either.
That I agree with 100% We should also lower the size of the standing army until we have a war, and the congress should have to declare war before troops are sent in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780
Foreign Aide: Foreign aide amounts to taking money from Americans and giving it to dictators.
This is another place where libertarian principle start to break down. Sometimes you've got to give foreign aid to countries to garner favor with them. For instance, Egypt. We could ignore them right now that their government has fallen. But if we do, they could fall to a radical Muslim government that isn't friendly to us. So in the mean time, if we give them a few billion dollars to stay on their good side, it could pay off big time in the long run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780
Environmental Issues: The US Government is the single biggest polluter in the country. Most environmental issues can be dealt with through property rights since property owners have the biggest stake in preventing pollution on their property. Even most air pollution could be dealt with through property rights: If someone pollutes the air and they do you or your property harm, they are liable for the damages. The government should not be immune from pollution liability.
This isn't going to work with private industry. Private industry won't do anything unless its cost effective and they see a profit in it. Pollution rarely causes them problems to their bottom line, or being green doesn't show an added benefit to the business. Unfortunately, its one of the things we need a federal government to regulate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780
Gay Marriage: The government shouldn't require a license to be married in the first place. If the government didn't issue marriage certificates, this would be a non-issue. Any church (or Vegas wedding venue) who would be willing to marry gay couples would do so.
A libertarian would view state sponsored marriage as being an afront to liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780
The Drug War: State and Federal Governments have spent billions if not trillions of dollars enforcing bans on certain substances in the United States. They've made sick people criminals and made criminals millionaires. There are plenty of substances much more dangerous than illegal drugs that are perfectly legal; we'd all be better off if the government didn't take our money from us and use it to put sick people in the clink.
The federal government has no business regulating any substance that isn't harmful to anyone outside of the one individual who has made the purchase.
I can't speak for all Libertarians, but I think these views are pretty mainstream in the libertarian community. I wonder what people think of them.
The Constitution: The US Government should exist within the limits of its Constitution. Powers not explicitly given to the Federal Government should fall upon the states or upon the people themselves. Using the commerce clause to regulate things that aren't explicitly interstate commerce issues is generally done merely to give the government an excuse to claim power outside of its original charter without the hassle of amending the Constitution. This is unethical and improper.
Agreed completely
Quote:
Individual Liberty: Freedom comes first. Libertarians would rather be a free pauper than a rich slave. That's not saying that we want to be poor, but rather that we put a high value on individual liberties. Actually, Libertarians believe that more freedom results in more prosperity for everyone. There are a few Nobel prize winning economists that seem to agree.
Agree completely
Quote:
Taxes/Government Spending: Taxes and government spending are far too high and far too localized in Washington. Government should be as small as possible and as local as possible. There's no need for people thousands of miles away to dictate how you live.
Agree completely.
Quote:
Recessions/Depressions: Recessions/depressions are generally caused by mismanagement of the money supply by the Federal Reserve. Prior to the Federal Reserve, financial crises were generally shorter and less severe. See mises.org for a lot of great information about the economics of the boom/bust cycle.
Agree again.
Quote:
National Defense: National defense is necessary. However, maintaining permanent bases in foreign countries doesn't seem defensive, but sure costs a mint. Sending troops to fight wars in foreign lands doesn't make you many friends, either.
Agree, hard to hold yourself up as a bastion of freedom when occupied with repressing people across the world.
Quote:
Foreign Aide: Foreign aide amounts to taking money from Americans and giving it to dictators.
Yup.
Quote:
Environmental Issues: The US Government is the single biggest polluter in the country. Most environmental issues can be dealt with through property rights since property owners have the biggest stake in preventing pollution on their property. Even most air pollution could be dealt with through property rights: If someone pollutes the air and they do you or your property harm, they are liable for the damages. The government should not be immune from pollution liability.
Agreed, the govt should not be immune to anything. Do as I say, not as I do is never a good policy.
Quote:
Gay Marriage: The government shouldn't require a license to be married in the first place. If the government didn't issue marriage certificates, this would be a non-issue. Any church (or Vegas wedding venue) who would be willing to marry gay couples would do so.
Agreed to an extent. I dont think the Govt needs to be involved in marriage, but since they rape us tax wise concessions have been made to help married folks raise families. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce they are of a lesser value, as a couple to society & theres no reason to extend the same perks to them. If we think of marriage as nothing but an agreement to stay together & share finances then I'd agree. But the reality is different. Shrink Govt to the point that nobody needs reprieve from the burden it places on them and everything changes.
Quote:
The Drug War:
Quote:
State and Federal Governments have spent billions if not trillions of dollars enforcing bans on certain substances in the United States. They've made sick people criminals and made criminals millionaires. There are plenty of substances much more dangerous than illegal drugs that are perfectly legal; we'd all be better off if the government didn't take our money from us and use it to put sick people in the clink.
Agreed again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
