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.
Where does the Constitution say that ? Forgive me if I'm not understanding what you are attempting to convey but what it *sounds* like you're trying to say is that Congress can take upon any power it deems necessary to do what "We the People require" instead of Congress only having those powers explicitly delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution, which, if that's the case has a number of problems:
1. It violates the principle purpose for the existence of the Constitution which is to establish the rule of law as opposed to the rule of man.
2. It flies directly in the face of federalism since it would deem Congress as an entity with essentially limitless authority.
3. It runs counter to the generally accepted belief that the principle founders harbored a deep distrust of the dark side of Democracy (the tyranny of the majority)
Feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying.
Take it up with the Courts my friend
Thats why we have them
What's that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that I sue you to get a clarification on your assertions? I'm sure my lawyer would love that but my self interest informs me that the value proposition is less than attractive.
Where does the Constitution say that ? Forgive me if I'm not understanding what you are attempting to convey but what it *sounds* like you're trying to say is that Congress can take upon any power it deems necessary to do what "We the People require" instead of Congress only having those powers explicitly delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution, which, if that's the case has a number of problems:
1. It violates the principle purpose for the existence of the Constitution which is to establish the rule of law as opposed to the rule of man.
2. It flies directly in the face of federalism since it would deem Congress as an entity with essentially limitless authority.
3. It runs counter to the generally accepted belief that the principle founders harbored a deep distrust of the dark side of Democracy (the tyranny of the majority)
Feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying.
Take it up with the Courts my friend
Thats why we have them
What's that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that I sue you to get a clarification on your assertions? I'm sure my lawyer would love that but my self interest informs me that the value proposition is less than attractive.
I Didn't claim that it was since I'm perfectly aware thatTake it up with the Courts my friend
Thats why we have them
What's that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that I sue you to get a clarification on your assertions? I'm sure my lawyer would love that but my self interest informs me that the value proposition is less than attractive.
As C Clayton Jones points out again and again and again to deaf ears......The Constitution is not an end in itself.
So where is your claim supported in case law? Why would the Constitution bother to explicitly define the powers of Congress if as you claim it's only constraint is "To do what we the people require"? If Congress can take on any power that it deems pursuant to "What we the people require" doesn't that make the power of Congress for all intents and purposes unlimited and thus put us under the rule of man instead of the rule of law?It is a document supported by 230 years of case law that defines it context and scope
I Didn't claim that it was since I'm perfectly aware thatWhat's that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that I sue you to get a clarification on your assertions? I'm sure my lawyer would love that but my self interest informs me that the value proposition is less than attractive.
As C Clayton Jones points out again and again and again to deaf ears......The Constitution is not an end in itself.
a.) The Constitution contains a provision for Amendments
b.) It has been the province of the Judicial Branch to interpret the meaning of the contents of the Constitution.
So where is your claim supported in case law? Why would the Constitution bother to explicitly define the powers of Congress if as you claim it's only constraint is "To do what we the people require"? If Congress can take on any power that it deems pursuant to "What we the people require" doesn't that make the power of Congress for all intents and purposes unlimited and thus put us under the rule of man instead of the rule of law?It is a document supported by 230 years of case law that defines it context and scope
Ask the courts, NightFox.
Please don't put quotes around what I did not say. Quotes means that you are using my words as I wrote them. You are saying your view of what I said, not what I said. You don't quote when you are doing that.
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. - Lysander Spooner
Did I get it right that time?
You got the quote part right. However, while it has certainly eroded, it took over 200 years for the Constitution to unravel completely and lead to things like Obamacare and the abolition of private property rights. So to call it "powerless to prevent it" is silly. At some point it becomes the responsibility of the people, not just the document.
Anarchists They dont like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and dont really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.
LOL at your idea of an Anarchist...what a fool..
Actually the fools apparently are the anarchists (edit: I mistyped "atheists" here and RW couldn't tell in my post about lack of government I meant anarchists) that I've queried. When I ask them about how the government that libertarians do want could work under anarchy, police, defense, recognition of property rights, management of limited resources, they just say they don't know, the market will solve it.
I'm a serious capitalist homey. I spent my career in Business and Finance. I love a free market. But without a way to have recognition of property rights, there are none. And none of them can give any answer at all to any of that. They don't know.
So if you have content on that, then criticize them for articulating it so poorly. And if you don't, who gives a rats ass what you're saying anyway.
Please don't put quotes around what I did not say. Quotes means that you are using my words as I wrote them. You are saying your view of what I said, not what I said. You don't quote when you are doing that.
Like the liberals, you're agreeing with my depiction. I did not say you were "dumb" I said you were "simple minded and naive." When you actually ever present an actual argument on anarchism, I may change my mind. You or any other anarchists I've ever discussed it with.
Your ignoring the fact that anarchists have endlessly answered any questions you may have, while always acknowledging that the market is unpredictable and that new innovation causes new ways of thinking about how to do things, isn't the problem of the anarchists.
Well, we're going to have to disagree on whether saying I don't know and I'm not omniscient so I can't give you any idea at all are answering the question by informing me of your dearth of knowledge of how your system will work or whether it's not answering the question.
This is not the place to present a detailed account of how the private provision of what today are considered "public goods" would work (though the lack of a priori knowledge of how the market would solve countless specific problems is the naïve, facile objection of those who favor the current status quo under the pretext, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"). In fact, we cannot know today what entrepreneurial solutions an army of enterprising individuals would find for particular problems — if they were allowed to do so. Nevertheless, even the most skeptical person must admit that "we now know" that the market, driven by creative entrepreneurship, works, and it works precisely to the extent that the state does not coercively intervene in this social process.
It is also essential to recognize that difficulties and conflicts invariably arise precisely in areas where the free, spontaneous order of the market is hindered. Thus, regardless of the efforts made from the time of Gustav de Molinari to the present to imagine how an anarchocapitalist network of private security and defense agencies, each in support of more or less marginally alternative legal systems, would work, freedom theorists must never forget that what prevents us from knowing what a stateless future would be like — the creative nature of entrepreneurship — is precisely what offers us the peace of knowing that any problem will tend to be overcome, as the people involved will devote all of their effort and creativity to solving it.
The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, heres how todays major parties and ideologies view it.
Wrong. The founders incorrectly bent over backwards to limit government in the Articles of Confederation,
but later coming to their senses,
they abandoned that 'imbecility', as Alexander Hamilton called it, and wrote a Constitution that established a much more powerful, central government.
Our founding fathers wanted a Government that does what needs to be done and does what makes sense
If they didn't, they were a bunch of fucking assholes
Libertarians did not write the constitution. The founders were Liberals..not Libertarian.
And the small government they were looking for was one free of Nobles and Royalty.
They were looking for a government that had restrictions on power in terms of what they could and couldn't do.
They were looking for a government that was not an adherent to any particular religion and respected the rights of the minority.
That's what you folks absolutely do not get.
Very true
Our founding fathers built a government they could afford. Which at our founding was not much. They never intended to limit future generations from building the government they needed.
Of course.
Add in the founder codified the ability to make changes to the Constitution as needed.
It was never meant to be "set in stone".
That's very progressive and forward thinking.
Very true
Our founding fathers built a government they could afford. Which at our founding was not much. They never intended to limit future generations from building the government they needed.
Of course.
Add in the founder codified the ability to make changes to the Constitution as needed.
It was never meant to be "set in stone".
That's very progressive and forward thinking.
Thru the difficult amendment process.. something you and your ilk thinks can be thwarted by whim and that the government can just grant for itself
Ask the courts, NightFox.
I always give credit where credit is due, your parrot impersonation is a mighty good one, thank you for sharing it and have a wonderful day.
I didn't say that I answered all of your questions. I said that those questions have been answered. They have given endless answers to those questions of how things could work in an anarcho-capitalist society. Even wrote a few books on the subjects which I linked to in my last post.
Our Constitution was not set ups as a Cook Book telling future generations what recepies they are allowed to make and what ingredients to use
If you read it, the Constitution establishes a kitchen comprised of The President, Congress and the Courts which decides what to make to eat
Wrong again, they provided Article 5 in the event future generations felt the recipes needed to be changed. If they failed to use it then you have to eat the same old stuff. It not culinary science.
They provided Article 1 to empower Congress to do what We the People require without having to envoke Article 5
The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, heres how todays major parties and ideologies view it.
Wrong. The founders incorrectly bent over backwards to limit government in the Articles of Confederation,
but later coming to their senses,
they abandoned that 'imbecility', as Alexander Hamilton called it, and wrote a Constitution that established a much more powerful, central government.
Do you have an agent for that fiction?
