How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[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?

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?

It makes no sense whatsoever.

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.

So you can't quote the language in the constitution that gives congress the power to regulate everything a person does that might impact interstate commerce. I knew you wouldn't be able to.

 

[P@triot]

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?

It makes no sense whatsoever.

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.

Really? Please show me the section of the U.S. Constitution which states that "case law" makes law. Quite the contrary junior, the U.S. Constitution specifically states that only the legislative branch can create law.

The founders did not want unelected, unaccountable people creating law for the American people. The fact that you have never read the U.S. Constitution (and you now you haven't), haven't read the original writings of our founders (you now you haven't), and refuse to study history does not change reality. You unhinged, radicalized ideologue.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you can't quote the language in the constitution that gives congress the power to regulate everything a person does that might impact interstate commerce. I knew you wouldn't be able to.

That is because it is not entirely in the Constitution itself but is interpreted and implemented as a legal document using case law as well.

This is a basic concept of Constitutional law, if you cannot grasp that I dont have time to spoon feed it to you, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Really? Please show me the section of the U.S. Constitution which states that "case law" makes law.

lol, I guess I need to add the stupidity of Libertarianism to the evil of Libertarianism.

 

[Centinel]

So you can't quote the language in the constitution that gives congress the power to regulate everything a person does that might impact interstate commerce. I knew you wouldn't be able to.

That is because it is not entirely in the Constitution itself but is interpreted and implemented as a legal document using case law as well.

This is a basic concept of Constitutional law, if you cannot grasp that I dont have time to spoon feed it to you, dude.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

Only the constitution and the laws made in pursuance are the law of the land.

And the law of the land doesn't say that congress has the power to regulate everything a person does that might impact interstate commerce.

 

[kaz]

When you go to your local baker, explain how that's "interstate commerce"

Or, better yet, commerce among the several states. (Remember, the constitution doesn't say "interstate commerce".)

What do you think is the difference? They appear to be synonyms to me

The object of the prepositional phrase is "the several states", not the people of the several states. Big difference.

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

The material difference I see would be that any law congress passed to implement this power would apply to the states, not to individuals.

I agree with that the restrictions apply to the States, not individuals. But can you give me an example how in a practical sense those are different? Tariffs between States for example would be a restriction on individuals by the States with the Federal government saying States can't restrict individuals that way, so I don't see an actual difference.

A current practical situation is the Federal government should strike down a lot more barriers to trade, like forcing you to buy your car from a dealer (which adds $1K-$2K) to the price of a car and prevents you from buying say directly from Ford. It's a car, why can't you just buy it from Ford? Medical insurance is huge, the Feds can and should strike down restricting us from buying medical insurance from out of State insurers.

So yes, the Feds in those cases are restricting States, but it benefits individuals. I'm not clear how the end effect is different

 

[kaz]

Really? Please show me the section of the U.S. Constitution which states that "case law" makes law.

lol, I guess I need to add the stupidity of Libertarianism to the evil of Libertarianism.

I'm going to ignore you now for these libertarian discussions because you insist on using the wrong words no matter how many times I explain the difference to you. Go back to school and learn to write your native language.

Note I'm not putting you on ignore, I'm just not going to debate libertarian with you until you stop being an ass. If you were asking genuine questions you care about the answer, you would use the terms correctly

 

[kaz]

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?

It makes no sense whatsoever.

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.

Really? Please show me the section of the U.S. Constitution which states that "case law" makes law. Quite the contrary junior, the U.S. Constitution specifically states that only the legislative branch can create law.

The founders did not want unelected, unaccountable people creating law for the American people. The fact that you have never read the U.S. Constitution (and you now you haven't), haven't read the original writings of our founders (you now you haven't), and refuse to study history does not change reality. You unhinged, radicalized ideologue.

Yes. The people ceded the powers in the COTUS. When the judiciary makes new laws based on "case law," the people are not the source of that government power, so there is no legitimate power

 

[Centinel]

Or, better yet, commerce among the several states. (Remember, the constitution doesn't say "interstate commerce".)

What do you think is the difference? They appear to be synonyms to me

The object of the prepositional phrase is "the several states", not the people of the several states. Big difference.

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

The material difference I see would be that any law congress passed to implement this power would apply to the states, not to individuals.

I agree with that the restrictions apply to the States, not individuals. But can you give me an example how in a practical sense those are different? Tariffs between States for example would be a restriction on individuals by the States with the Federal government saying States can't restrict individuals that way, so I don't see an actual difference.

A current practical situation is the Federal government should strike down a lot more barriers to trade, like forcing you to buy your car from a dealer (which adds $1K-$2K) to the price of a car and prevents you from buying say directly from Ford. It's a car, why can't you just buy it from Ford? Medical insurance is huge, the Feds can and should strike down restricting us from buying medical insurance from out of State insurers.

So yes, the Feds in those cases are restricting States, but it benefits individuals. I'm not clear how the end effect is different

I think the difference is that any fed law concerning commerce among the states would be to strike down a state law, not to regulate the actions of individuals.

 

[kaz]

What do you think is the difference? They appear to be synonyms to me

The object of the prepositional phrase is "the several states", not the people of the several states. Big difference.

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

The material difference I see would be that any law congress passed to implement this power would apply to the states, not to individuals.

I agree with that the restrictions apply to the States, not individuals. But can you give me an example how in a practical sense those are different? Tariffs between States for example would be a restriction on individuals by the States with the Federal government saying States can't restrict individuals that way, so I don't see an actual difference.

A current practical situation is the Federal government should strike down a lot more barriers to trade, like forcing you to buy your car from a dealer (which adds $1K-$2K) to the price of a car and prevents you from buying say directly from Ford. It's a car, why can't you just buy it from Ford? Medical insurance is huge, the Feds can and should strike down restricting us from buying medical insurance from out of State insurers.

So yes, the Feds in those cases are restricting States, but it benefits individuals. I'm not clear how the end effect is different

I think the difference is that any fed law concerning commerce among the states would be to strike down a state law, not to regulate the actions of individuals.

OK, so is this what you are saying?

- When the Feds tear down hurdles, there's in the end no difference. States were restricting trade, individuals no longer need to follow that State restriction

- If the Feds try to restrict trade (e.g., make it illegal to sell drugs across State borders where that drug is legal in both States), there's no Federal authority to do that since the Federal government can neither dictate what State laws are nor restrict the activities of individuals who are not breaking State law?

 

[dblack]

Your call. I'll mark it down as flim-flam.

Lol, this idiot thinks axioms are flim flam, roflmao

Nope. I was referring to your rambling, incoherent post.

 

[P@triot]

So you can't quote the language in the constitution that gives congress the power to regulate everything a person does that might impact interstate commerce. I knew you wouldn't be able to.

That is because it is not entirely in the Constitution itself but is interpreted and implemented as a legal document using case law as well.

This is a basic concept of Constitutional law, if you cannot grasp that I dont have time to spoon feed it to you, dude.

Bingo junior! You're "but" after that falls on deaf ears. Everyone stopped reading at that point. Why? Because the Constitution specifically outlines our entire structure of government and where powers are delegated and to what extent those powers exist. There is not "but" after that. Thank you for your moment of honesty and for proving yourself wrong.

 

[P@triot]

Really? Please show me the section of the U.S. Constitution which states that "case law" makes law.

lol, I guess I need to add the stupidity of Libertarianism to the evil of Libertarianism.

So you are admitting that you cannot cite the section of the U.S. Constitution which states that "case law" makes law and that the judicial branch is empowered to create legislation like the legislative branch?

 

[P@triot]

Really? Please show me the section of the U.S. Constitution which states that "case law" makes law.

lol, I guess I need to add the stupidity of Libertarianism to the evil of Libertarianism.

I'm going to ignore you now for these libertarian discussions because you insist on using the wrong words no matter how many times I explain the difference to you. Go back to school and learn to write your native language.

Note I'm not putting you on ignore, I'm just not going to debate libertarian with you until you stop being an ass. If you were asking genuine questions you care about the answer, you would use the terms correctly

You'll have to forgive him Kaz. He's getting his ass handed to him by a bunch of people with facts. That has to be frustrating and would turn most people into an "ass".

 

[Synthaholic]

Dumbest solution I have ever heard

The real problem is that conservatives do not want the transgendered to use either bathroom. They would just as soon beat the shit out of them

We're talking about libertarianism not conservatism, so who cares what conservatives want?

And what is dumb about allowing the owner of something to determine how that thing is used?

I live in North Carolina. That's exactly what that law does, it prevents local governments from forcing businesses to say how customers use their private bathrooms. It doesn't force them to not allow transgender access to the bathroom of their choice, it stops local governments from forcing local businesses how to provide access to the bathrooms. It's a correct law regardless of whether you think they should do

You're close to losing next year's NBA All-Star game.

Since you profess people doing what they want, I'm sure you have no objections to all the corporate and individual boycotts of your state, right?

OMG, not the all-star game!

Let's see, do I want:

Option A) Businesses to decide the rules for the use of their own restrooms

Option B) The "all star game"

Yes, you do live in an Entertainment Tonight world. I'll take Option A, please. But I don't crave slavery like you do

It's not only the NBA.

Here's the list of all the people and companies boycotting the state so far:

Ringo Starr

Bryan Adams

Deutsche Bank

PayPal

Bruce Springsteen

Michael Moore

xHamster

Joel McHale

General Electric

the Dow Chemical Company

Pepsi

Hyatt

Hewlett Packard

Choice Hotels International

Whole Foods

Levis Strauss & Co.

Lionsgate

Now, a lot of them won't make an economic difference by themselves but they have influence.

North Carolina has their huge "Research Triangle". I heard an interview yesterday on NPR with an executive of Monsanto, which is fighting this law in Missouri, not because they're a Liberal corporation but because they already have stiff competition recruiting top chemists, etc. to move to Missouri and this law is going to further hurt their efforts.

North Carolina doesn't have a lot going for it other than it's universities unless you live on the coast. Businesses aren't clamoring to relocate there. This is going to hurt that further, and without those business taxes who do you think will have to make up the difference? You.

 

[Synthaholic]

The most successful libertarian government was the most successful government ever, the United States of America.

 

[rightwinger]

If 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.

No violence unless you create a dangerous scene

Otherwise, your business is just shut down until you can follow the rules

Coming from a person who not only never ran a business, but has never even worked for one.

It's comical sitting here listening to you pretend like you're in charge.

You own a business, you conform with the regulations of your community

If you had really owned your own business you would realize that

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.

Actually it doesn't
You own the business does not mean you make the rules

If you really owned a business you would know that

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

In theory, yes. Go to a small Alabama town and search for the people in a position financially to open a competing business.

Good luck!

 

[Synthaholic]

Charles W. Cooke, author of The Conservatarian Manifesto is on Real Time with Bill Maher right now - just started.

Are you confusion conservatism with libertarianism?

No.

Libertarianism and Conservatism are different political philosophies.

Take it up with the Conservatarians.

 

[Synthaholic]

They're enforced with violence, stupid.

One can't be arrested without violence? I wonder how many good shots Bernard Madoff got in before being violently hauled off to jail?