Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As usual, the U.S. Constitution proves you wrong. You want to convince the American people that private business is nothing more than extension of government - public space created to serve the people. But that's simply not the case. My private business on my private property entitles me to decide who I enter into business with and who I don't. The Constitution says so. And that trumps any local "regulations of my community". Believe me, you of all people I do not expect to understand this. But the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution proves what I said to be true.You own a business, you conform with the regulations of your communityComing from a person who not only never ran a business, but has never even worked for one.No violence unless you create a dangerous sceneIf you want to run your business in our society, you have to follow our rules
It applies to building codes, labor regulations, hours you are allowed to operate and who you are required to serve
Yes, the proclivity for authoritarians to use violence to enforce their rules on their fellow man is well established.
To an authoritarian, violence is always the answer.
Otherwise, your business is just shut down until you can follow the rules
It's comical sitting here listening to you pretend like you're in charge.
If you had really owned your own business you would realize that
A fact that the modern day liberal simply cannot comprehend because the modern day liberal is too lazy to see opportunity and meet that opportunity. They want someone else to do it for them. And how do you do that? By unconstitutionally demanding through government that someone place a gun to your head and forces you to bake a cake for gay couples.You think there's economic opportunity awaiting everyone, everywhere. It's just not so.
If one business discriminates, it opens up the opportunity for another business so swoop in and snatch up those who have been discriminated against.
So what about you should be free to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on other's right to do the same do you disagree with?
1. One should not violate the law and the punishment for that should be administered by the government and consist of combinations of fines, imprisonment and capital punishment
- begging the question. The question is what should the laws be, not what should enforcement be
2. One should not infringe on public morality and standards of decency. The penalty for this should be public shunning, and criticism, not governmental punishment.
- agreed, that's a totally libertarian view
3. One should not engage in fraud. The punishment for that depends on the nature of the fraud.
- agreed, that's a libertarian view. They violated the second part of the philosophy, "don't infringe on other's right to do the same"
4. One should not advocate the harm of other people.
- agreed, that's a libertarian view. They violated the second part of the philosophy, "don't infringe on other's right to do the same"
All the above passes the free to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on other's right to do the same mantra.
And some of your examples no force is being used, so there is no violation of the non-aggression principle:So if a person is killing an unborn baby, is that a violation of another person?
If a pimp coerces one of his whores to get back out on the street, despite her flu and resume getting the minimum number of johns he has given her, is that wrong by Libertarian notions?
The following two issues are interesting, in that they involve dependent minors. They also don't involve the use of force. However, I think that most libertarians would agree that if you put someone in a position of dependence, then you assume responsibility for them. For example, if I take you up in an airplane, I have placed you in a position of dependence, and it then would be unethical for me to say you must get off my property while at 5,000 feet. Likewise, when one decides to create a dependent child, I would argue that one has an obligation to that child. So I would say that the following act would be unethical:If someone refuses to defend their own country by ducking the draft in a time of war, is that against the Libertarian belief system?
If someone refuses to pay their taxes is that a violation?
If a person buys out a company that has the patent on a life saving drug then runs the price up by a factor of 50, is that wrong by Libertarian values?
As for the following, I would say that nobody has a right to interact with another's minor child without the parent or guardian's permission:If a Father abandons his own biologically conceived children to live on the street, is that violence of some kind?
I hope that makes my position clearer.If a person decides that a law against selling crack cocaine to minors is unjust and begins to do so, is he violating Libertarian values?
"In light of existing case law". Bingo! The Constitution proves me right. Which then requires you to go to illegal and unconstitutional "case law" (i.e. a libtard political activist deciding they are empowered to trump the U.S. Constitution and decide for themselves what rights and freedoms the American people have). Just one small problem with that my friend - law are made from the legislative branch and the entire court system is part of the judicial branch. Well, the judicial branch is not allowed to make law (look it up - only the legislative branch can make laws). Therefor, "case law" is unconstitutional. The legislative branch is not empowered to make law. Game over.As usual, the U.S. Constitution proves you wrong. You want to convince the American people that private business is nothing more than extension of government - public space created to serve the people. But that's simply not the case. My private business on my private property entitles me to decide who I enter into business with and who I don't. The Constitution says so. And that trumps any local "regulations of my community". Believe me, you of all people I do not expect to understand this. But the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution proves what I said to be true.You own a business, you conform with the regulations of your communityComing from a person who not only never ran a business, but has never even worked for one.No violence unless you create a dangerous sceneYes, the proclivity for authoritarians to use violence to enforce their rules on their fellow man is well established.
To an authoritarian, violence is always the answer.
Otherwise, your business is just shut down until you can follow the rules
It's comical sitting here listening to you pretend like you're in charge.
If you had really owned your own business you would realize that
The Constitution, viewed in the light of existing case law, says that everything you do impacts interstate commerce and can thus be regulated and restricted by the federal government.
The Constitution, viewed in the light of existing case law, says that everything you do impacts interstate commerce and can thus be regulated and restricted by the federal government.
Boom! Down goes Synthaholic! Down goes Synthaholic!This is too retarded to respond to.
Do all libertarians believe you should be able to just walk into the White House?
You said that the government is the people. I'm one of the people, no? So I'm the government.
As usual, the U.S. Constitution proves you wrong. You want to convince the American people that private business is nothing more than extension of government - public space created to serve the people. But that's simply not the case. My private business on my private property entitles me to decide who I enter into business with and who I don't. The Constitution says so. And that trumps any local "regulations of my community". Believe me, you of all people I do not expect to understand this. But the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution proves what I said to be true.You own a business, you conform with the regulations of your communityComing from a person who not only never ran a business, but has never even worked for one.No violence unless you create a dangerous sceneYes, the proclivity for authoritarians to use violence to enforce their rules on their fellow man is well established.
To an authoritarian, violence is always the answer.
Otherwise, your business is just shut down until you can follow the rules
It's comical sitting here listening to you pretend like you're in charge.
If you had really owned your own business you would realize that
The Constitution, viewed in the light of existing case law, says that everything you do impacts interstate commerce and can thus be regulated and restricted by the federal government.
Synthaholic is a she????Boom! Down goes Synthaholic! Down goes Synthaholic!This is too retarded to respond to.
Do all libertarians believe you should be able to just walk into the White House?
You said that the government is the people. I'm one of the people, no? So I'm the government.
Watching you own her is a pleasure Centinel!
The Constitution, viewed in the light of existing case law, says that everything you do impacts interstate commerce and can thus be regulated and restricted by the federal government.
The constitution gives congress the power to regulate everything a person does that might impact interstate commerce? Can you please quote the relevant clause in Art I, section 8?
Or, better yet, commerce among the several states. (Remember, the constitution doesn't say "interstate commerce".)When you go to your local baker, explain how that's "interstate commerce"
Synthaholic is a she????Boom! Down goes Synthaholic! Down goes Synthaholic!This is too retarded to respond to.
Do all libertarians believe you should be able to just walk into the White House?
You said that the government is the people. I'm one of the people, no? So I'm the government.
Watching you own her is a pleasure Centinel!
It makes no sense whatsoever.The Constitution, viewed in the light of existing case law, says that everything you do impacts interstate commerce and can thus be regulated and restricted by the federal government.
The constitution gives congress the power to regulate everything a person does that might impact interstate commerce? Can you please quote the relevant clause in Art I, section 8?
You see, what the founders did was create a strictly limited government with enumerated powers. One of those powers was government can do anything the fuck it wants. Doesn't Jim's argument make sense to you?
Or, better yet, commerce among the several states. (Remember, the constitution doesn't say "interstate commerce".)When you go to your local baker, explain how that's "interstate commerce"
It's not. At all. And they know it. Just like Obamacare is not a "tax" and they know it. It's legislation creating a new department of the federal government and new powers where none exists.As usual, the U.S. Constitution proves you wrong. You want to convince the American people that private business is nothing more than extension of government - public space created to serve the people. But that's simply not the case. My private business on my private property entitles me to decide who I enter into business with and who I don't. The Constitution says so. And that trumps any local "regulations of my community". Believe me, you of all people I do not expect to understand this. But the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution proves what I said to be true.You own a business, you conform with the regulations of your communityComing from a person who not only never ran a business, but has never even worked for one.No violence unless you create a dangerous scene
Otherwise, your business is just shut down until you can follow the rules
It's comical sitting here listening to you pretend like you're in charge.
If you had really owned your own business you would realize that
The Constitution, viewed in the light of existing case law, says that everything you do impacts interstate commerce and can thus be regulated and restricted by the federal government.
When you go to your local baker, explain how that's "interstate commerce"
The object of the prepositional phrase is "the several states", not "the people of the several states". Big difference.Or, better yet, commerce among the several states. (Remember, the constitution doesn't say "interstate commerce".)When you go to your local baker, explain how that's "interstate commerce"
What do you think is the difference? They appear to be synonyms to me
There is a great web site that a friend recently sent me which covers this perfectly. Here is an excerpt which just nails it and supports exactly what you just said:The Constitution, viewed in the light of existing case law, says that everything you do impacts interstate commerce and can thus be regulated and restricted by the federal government.
The constitution gives congress the power to regulate everything a person does that might impact interstate commerce? Can you please quote the relevant clause in Art I, section 8?
You see, what the founders did was create a strictly limited government with enumerated powers. One of those powers was government can do anything the fuck it wants. Doesn't Jim's argument make sense to you?
The object of the prepositional phrase is "the several states", not the people of the several states. Big difference.Or, better yet, commerce among the several states. (Remember, the constitution doesn't say "interstate commerce".)When you go to your local baker, explain how that's "interstate commerce"
What do you think is the difference? They appear to be synonyms to me
The point of that power was to allow congress to regulate commerce among the states. For example, to make laws against state tariffs or quotas.
The material difference I see would be that any law congress passed to implement this power would apply to the states, not to individuals.The object of the prepositional phrase is "the several states", not the people of the several states. Big difference.Or, better yet, commerce among the several states. (Remember, the constitution doesn't say "interstate commerce".)When you go to your local baker, explain how that's "interstate commerce"
What do you think is the difference? They appear to be synonyms to me
The point of that power was to allow congress to regulate commerce among the states. For example, to make laws against state tariffs or quotas.
I'm still seeing a distinction without a difference. Interstate trade refers as you say to that the federal government can prevent States from creating as you said tariffs or quotas or restrict certain products. Government can regulate the movement of goods and services when moving between the States.
The intent was to prevent barriers to trade, but they did just give them the power to regulate it generally.
What material difference are you seeing in "commerce among the several states?" I'm not arguing with you, I just don't understand the difference you are claiming
Lol, case law is part of the Constitutions implementation, so it doesnt really matter if you can grasp that or not; it is the REALITY, ideologue.It makes no sense whatsoever.The Constitution, viewed in the light of existing case law, says that everything you do impacts interstate commerce and can thus be regulated and restricted by the federal government.
The constitution gives congress the power to regulate everything a person does that might impact interstate commerce? Can you please quote the relevant clause in Art I, section 8?
You see, what the founders did was create a strictly limited government with enumerated powers. One of those powers was government can do anything the fuck it wants. Doesn't Jim's argument make sense to you?
