What is it that makes the constitution so sacred to you libertarians?

[Dr.Drock]

While the constitution was a brilliant design of government, it was not designed perfectly. In my opinion, it could not have accounted for how society has evolved over the years.

Really? Not at all? Can you tell me why countries without a constitution are all have done worse than we have if the constitution makes no difference?

It is my sincerest belief that while personal freedom and a free market are important American ideals, they needs limitations. Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that sounds good on paper, but its actual application as a national system would be crazy.

They "needs" limitations? Why do the need limitations, and what limitations do they need?



In order to agree with you you would have to prove to me that the government gets it right at least as often as it gets it wrong. I doubt you can manage to find enough examples of the government getting things right to prove to me they only get it wrong 75% of the time.



The FDA? Seriously? Are you even smart enough to know that FDA regulations cause an artificial shortage of many drugs that are needed to keep people healthy? Only a complete nincompoop would argue that the FDA is the only legal reason drug companies make sure that their drugs are safe.

A Hospital Drug Shortage Made In Washington | Cato @ Liberty

As for the FAA, do you know they still require pilots to file flight plans on paper, and that air traffic controllers still use cards on a board to track flights? Do you honestly think that any private company tasked with the same job would still be using such outdated technology?



That has only been an issue in the monds of people that ignore facts.

Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.



Can you explain how the budget deficits are the fault of taxes? Do you understand that the only way to run a deficit in a budget is to spend more money than you make? Are you aware that, even if we taxed all the rich at 100% of their income, and that we actually took in as much as the asinine projections of that tactic think we will, we will not reduce the deficit significantly?



How would it rectify anything? All it would do is take the income from one group and give it to the government.

I really love people who think that a fair share for everyone means that a few people pay and most people skate. Do you have the slightest inkling that most of the real wealth, and most tax revenue, comes from the middle class? That is why the Bush tax cuts "cost" $2.6 trillion. If we counted only the cuts to the rich that you are so paranoid about the total cost would have been $600 billion.



Who is supposed to pay for the drug testing? Why are we worried about drugs anyway? We could save more money if we legalized them than we could make by taxing the rich.

Like I said, the government isn't perfect; it certainly does over-reach from time to time. However, I think people have become so black-and-white when it comes to personal freedom. The idea has become over-romanticized in today's politics. The truth of the matter is that it is human nature for people to be selfish. People cannot handle certain personal freedoms. They just can't. For the sake of the greater good, people need limitations.

If is human nature for people to be selfish why do people in disaster ares respond by sharing the little they have with each other?

Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.

You are not a freedom hating socialist, you are an ignorant partisan hack who does not know how to think for himself.

I can't wait to read someone's counterpoints to all of Quantum's points.

Quantum great work once again.

 

[Oddball]

While the constitution was a brilliant design of government, it was not designed perfectly. In my opinion, it could not have accounted for how society has evolved over the years.

It is my sincerest belief that while personal freedom and a free market are important American ideals, they needs limitations. Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that sounds good on paper, but its actual application as a national system would be crazy.

I'll be the first to admit that the government doesn't always get it right. However, in the interest of public well-being, sometimes even economic growth does need to be limited by government regulation.

Wow....A veritable brigade of strawmen and red herrings straight off the top of the deck.

Who ever declared the Constitution perfect?...Who ever said there were no provisions for changing it as the society evolved?...Who ever said that anti-social behavior and aggression against one's neighbor fell under the realm of freedom?...Who died and made mere politicians and bureaucrats the deciders of how much economic activity and growth are "acceptable" and how much is not?...Who the hell are you or anyone else to try and tell someone you don't even know what's for their own well being and what is not?

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

Can you imagine the implications if we did not have government agencies, like the FDA or FAA? The pharmaceutical industry, for instance, would become dangerous. If drug companies were under no authoritative review, what is to stop them from releasing potentially harmful products? Without the FDA, there would be no legal mandate for these food and drug companies to test the safety and effectiveness of their products.
Self-regulation is a slow process and only works to an extent. There are plenty of things that would slip through the cracks that consumers would not know about. Take the tobacco companies, for instance. There are already additives in cigarettes that make them more addicting. Is it really worth it to have these industries left unchecked? Take a minute and imagine what they could get away with. Imagine what they could do to their products for the sake of more profit.... it's a scary thought.

Oh, so if Big Daddy Big Gubmint didn't do these things, then nobody would, huh?...Sounds to me that you're looking for a big babysitter, rather than people to protect your life. liberty and property.

And if people are so stupid as to not know which pharmaceutical companies are reputable and which products are good enough for them, how is it that they somehow become smart enough to choose the politicians, who will choose the bureaucrats, to run their lives for them, huh?

TAXATION

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.
If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.
This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth. And don't get it twisted -I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.
It isn't just the rich that need to pay taxes, of course. EVERYONE needs to put in their fair share for the sake of the greater good. I have no problem with paying higher taxes, so long as I know that the revenue is intended to make this country better (it doesn't always, I know).

Thank you for sharing that, Karl Marx.

WELFARE/UNEMPLOYMENT/FOOD STAMPS

I do understand that there are a lot of government moochers in this country, but that doesn't mean that these programs are unnecesssary and ineffective. Some people do need help when they are unable to stand on their own two feet. Also, it's not like it's easy to get into these programs. Have you ever seen the applications? They are huge, and leave little room for falsification.
Hell, I support the Republican proposal that people entering these programs should be drug-tested first. I think that it is a great compromise, and more of this government funding will ultimately go to the right people.

What you don't understand is that it's not the job of the feds to take from one group of individuals and give to another, while lining their own pockets in doing so.

Like I said, the government isn't perfect; it certainly does over-reach from time to time. However, I think people have become so black-and-white when it comes to personal freedom. The idea has become over-romanticized in today's politics. The truth of the matter is that it is human nature for people to be selfish. People cannot handle certain personal freedoms. They just can't. For the sake of the greater good, people need limitations.

Yet, somehow or another, all of these less-than-perfect aspects of human nature don't also apply to the politicians and bureaucrats you want to be the babysitters of everyone else?...Are you really so naïve to believe that such selfish and greedy people won't seek those positions of such power as an end unto itself?....Who is supposed to limit the selfishness and greed of our defacto babysitters?

Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.

No, it's plain that you are an anarchist....You want no rules at all, except those made up as you go, ostensibly for "the greater good", howsoever that's being defined this week by the nanny state....Of course, these fleeting and nebulous rules will only apply to some and not others.

 

[truthsaga]

Disgusted. This isn't sacred to Libertarians. It is sacred to human liberty and freedom, but only if it is followed by our representatives. Learn from history what happens when we start down the path of conquest, inflation, and the loss of liberty at home for the promise of security.

It is a path to destruction.

 

[whitehall]

WHY IS THE CONSTITUTION SO SACRED? That about says it all as far as the union education system goes in the US. A lot of pop-educated people can't identify pictures of the last couple of presidents but they have a gut feeling that the Constitution is flawed.

 

[truthsaga]

WHY IS THE CONSTITUTION SO SACRED? That about says it all as far as the union education system goes in the US. A lot of pop-educated people can't identify pictures of the last couple of presidents but they have a gut feeling that the Constitution is flawed.

That's whats up! Exactly, perfectly stated.

Also, I love the fact that we need to continue to listen to the people who are wrong on the economy and our foreign policy. If they are the reason we are in this mess, how we expect them to get us out of it?

 

[Oldstyle]

While the constitution was a brilliant design of government, it was not designed perfectly. In my opinion, it could not have accounted for how society has evolved over the years.

It is my sincerest belief that while personal freedom and a free market are important American ideals, they needs limitations. Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that sounds good on paper, but its actual application as a national system would be crazy.

I'll be the first to admit that the government doesn't always get it right. However, in the interest of public well-being, sometimes even economic growth does need to be limited by government regulation.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

Can you imagine the implications if we did not have government agencies, like the FDA or FAA? The pharmaceutical industry, for instance, would become dangerous. If drug companies were under no authoritative review, what is to stop them from releasing potentially harmful products? Without the FDA, there would be no legal mandate for these food and drug companies to test the safety and effectiveness of their products.
Self-regulation is a slow process and only works to an extent. There are plenty of things that would slip through the cracks that consumers would not know about. Take the tobacco companies, for instance. There are already additives in cigarettes that make them more addicting. Is it really worth it to have these industries left unchecked? Take a minute and imagine what they could get away with. Imagine what they could do to their products for the sake of more profit.... it's a scary thought.

TAXATION

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.
If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.
This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth. And don't get it twisted -I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.
It isn't just the rich that need to pay taxes, of course. EVERYONE needs to put in their fair share for the sake of the greater good. I have no problem with paying higher taxes, so long as I know that the revenue is intended to make this country better (it doesn't always, I know).

WELFARE/UNEMPLOYMENT/FOOD STAMPS

I do understand that there are a lot of government moochers in this country, but that doesn't mean that these programs are unnecesssary and ineffective. Some people do need help when they are unable to stand on their own two feet. Also, it's not like it's easy to get into these programs. Have you ever seen the applications? They are huge, and leave little room for falsification.
Hell, I support the Republican proposal that people entering these programs should be drug-tested first. I think that it is a great compromise, and more of this government funding will ultimately go to the right people.


Like I said, the government isn't perfect; it certainly does over-reach from time to time. However, I think people have become so black-and-white when it comes to personal freedom. The idea has become over-romanticized in today's politics. The truth of the matter is that it is human nature for people to be selfish. People cannot handle certain personal freedoms. They just can't. For the sake of the greater good, people need limitations.

Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.

I don't think you're a "freedom-hating socialist", Billy...I think you're a naive progressive that believes that more goverment is the answer when even a cursory look at government's track record proves otherwise.

You ask what would be the answer if there were no FDA? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't we have thriving personal injury lawyer class ready to sue anyone they can at the slightest provocation? You seem to feel that the FDA were nonexistant that the drug companies would ride roughshod over the people they serve. I think you're mistaken. In many ways our markets are self-policing. If you're a drug manufacturer and you put out harmful products then you WILL be sued into oblivion.

As far as taxation goes? You say that you want EVERYONE to pay their fair share but who determines what is "fair"? We've reached the point now where almost half of Americans pay no income tax at all while they receive more and more benefits. You've got people with no "skin" in the game voting in politicians who will give them even more entitlements. Where does that end? If you were to tax the top 10% of this country 100% of what they make it STILL wouldn't pay for the unfunded entitlements we've obligated ourselves to over the next few decades. We sit here making policy like that while Europe teeters on the edge of fiscal collapse BECAUSE of past policy like that and yet people like you seem oblivious to the danger. Why?

As for your contention that Unemployment and Food Stamps are difficult to get and require filling out difficult applications? I'm sorry, Billy but that's simply not the case. I've helped a number of former employees do both and the forms are rather simple to fill out. As for abuse of the programs? If you don't think that Unemployment and Food Stamps are rife with abuse then you're showing yourself to be incredibly naive again. You can work under the table in this country and collect both unemployment and food stamps. Do you seriously think that isn't taking place?

You say that it's "human nature" for people to be greedy? It's human nature for some people to be "ambitious". They aren't synonymous. It's also "a given" that government always wants to grow and will do so both in scope, power and control unless it is vigilantly pruned back by the people.

 

[Big Fitz]

I think we need a method to put national referendumns dealing with national issues on the ballot every two years.

Now that is something I could agree with, but I detect a small problem with that. It could not be a simple majority win. Reason, because mob rule is so easy to run amok and destroy protections to liberty, and we should not end up as a nation like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While the constitution was a brilliant design of government, it was not designed perfectly. In my opinion, it could not have accounted for how society has evolved over the years.

Really? Not at all? Can you tell me why countries without a constitution are all have done worse than we have if the constitution makes no difference?



They "needs" limitations? Why do the need limitations, and what limitations do they need?



In order to agree with you you would have to prove to me that the government gets it right at least as often as it gets it wrong. I doubt you can manage to find enough examples of the government getting things right to prove to me they only get it wrong 75% of the time.



The FDA? Seriously? Are you even smart enough to know that FDA regulations cause an artificial shortage of many drugs that are needed to keep people healthy? Only a complete nincompoop would argue that the FDA is the only legal reason drug companies make sure that their drugs are safe.

A Hospital Drug Shortage Made In Washington | Cato @ Liberty

As for the FAA, do you know they still require pilots to file flight plans on paper, and that air traffic controllers still use cards on a board to track flights? Do you honestly think that any private company tasked with the same job would still be using such outdated technology?



That has only been an issue in the monds of people that ignore facts.

Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.



Can you explain how the budget deficits are the fault of taxes? Do you understand that the only way to run a deficit in a budget is to spend more money than you make? Are you aware that, even if we taxed all the rich at 100% of their income, and that we actually took in as much as the asinine projections of that tactic think we will, we will not reduce the deficit significantly?



How would it rectify anything? All it would do is take the income from one group and give it to the government.

I really love people who think that a fair share for everyone means that a few people pay and most people skate. Do you have the slightest inkling that most of the real wealth, and most tax revenue, comes from the middle class? That is why the Bush tax cuts "cost" $2.6 trillion. If we counted only the cuts to the rich that you are so paranoid about the total cost would have been $600 billion.



Who is supposed to pay for the drug testing? Why are we worried about drugs anyway? We could save more money if we legalized them than we could make by taxing the rich.



If is human nature for people to be selfish why do people in disaster ares respond by sharing the little they have with each other?

Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.

You are not a freedom hating socialist, you are an ignorant partisan hack who does not know how to think for himself.

I can't wait to read someone's counterpoints to all of Quantum's points.

Quantum great work once again.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Wiseacre]

Human rights and personal freedoms should be sacred to every American. The Constitution is the basic covenant between us and the gov't to protect those rights and freedoms, as opposed to limiting them. Gov't is supposed to be limited, it is supposed to serve it's citizens. And every citizen should be careful about surrendering those rights and freedoms, we should be opposed to a more powerful central gov't that eventually controls us instead of the other way around.

 

[truthsaga]

Human rights and personal freedoms should be sacred to every American. The Constitution is the basic covenant between us and the gov't to protect those rights and freedoms, as opposed to limiting them. Gov't is supposed to be limited, it is supposed to serve it's citizens. And every citizen should be careful about surrendering those rights and freedoms, we should be opposed to a more powerful central gov't that eventually controls us instead of the other way around.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Really? Not at all? Can you tell me why countries without a constitution are all have done worse than we have if the constitution makes no difference?



They "needs" limitations? Why do the need limitations, and what limitations do they need?



In order to agree with you you would have to prove to me that the government gets it right at least as often as it gets it wrong. I doubt you can manage to find enough examples of the government getting things right to prove to me they only get it wrong 75% of the time.



The FDA? Seriously? Are you even smart enough to know that FDA regulations cause an artificial shortage of many drugs that are needed to keep people healthy? Only a complete nincompoop would argue that the FDA is the only legal reason drug companies make sure that their drugs are safe.

A Hospital Drug Shortage Made In Washington | Cato @ Liberty

As for the FAA, do you know they still require pilots to file flight plans on paper, and that air traffic controllers still use cards on a board to track flights? Do you honestly think that any private company tasked with the same job would still be using such outdated technology?



That has only been an issue in the monds of people that ignore facts.

Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.



Can you explain how the budget deficits are the fault of taxes? Do you understand that the only way to run a deficit in a budget is to spend more money than you make? Are you aware that, even if we taxed all the rich at 100% of their income, and that we actually took in as much as the asinine projections of that tactic think we will, we will not reduce the deficit significantly?



How would it rectify anything? All it would do is take the income from one group and give it to the government.

I really love people who think that a fair share for everyone means that a few people pay and most people skate. Do you have the slightest inkling that most of the real wealth, and most tax revenue, comes from the middle class? That is why the Bush tax cuts "cost" $2.6 trillion. If we counted only the cuts to the rich that you are so paranoid about the total cost would have been $600 billion.



Who is supposed to pay for the drug testing? Why are we worried about drugs anyway? We could save more money if we legalized them than we could make by taxing the rich.



If is human nature for people to be selfish why do people in disaster ares respond by sharing the little they have with each other?



You are not a freedom hating socialist, you are an ignorant partisan hack who does not know how to think for himself.

I can't wait to read someone's counterpoints to all of Quantum's points.

Quantum great work once again.

Don't hold your breath.

I know, my hopes aren't high.

I'm predicting it goes ignored, and we just hear robots repeating liberal talking points.

 

[g5000]

It seems to me that people are talking past one another here.

The Opening Post gave the FDA as an example of libertarianism being too extreme. It is the Libertarian Party's platform to eliminate the FDA.

I think most Americans would be strongly opposed to eliminating the FDA if they were polled on such a question.

As the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce, the FDA falls squarely within that responsibility.

I know all about the LP argument which says the FDA holds up drugs for too long that could save lives, and the logic is then extended to say that because of this, the FDA kills x number of people every year.

Life before the FDA was pretty bad. There was no food safety. Every war had more casualties in the military ranks from bad food than from battle.


Is the FDA flawed? Sure. But since we cannot possibly achieve perfection, I will take the less-flawed FDA and fine tune it than the more-flawed pre-FDA world our country used to live in.

The Libertarian idea that people would shun companies that make bad food, or that people who make bad food would be sued in court is blown out of the water by the fact that we did have horribly bad food and food production practices before the FDA.

I also know that people will not select the best drugs for themselves. All one has to do is look at the booming homeopathy market to see how ridiculous that claim is. May I interest you in a magnetic shoe sole or ionic bracelet, sir?

It would be nice to live in the imaginary world that Libertarians live in where everyone is well-read on the fifteen zillion things they would need to be informed consumers. But that is just not possible.

It would also be nice to live in the imaginary unregulated world where no one dumps toxic waste in empty lots or into rivers and where everyone is mindful of the externalities their industrial production causes. But that is just not possible, either.


The Invisible Hand of the free market has a memory like that of a goldfish. The fuck-ups and the lawsuits and the deaths of yesterday are quickly forgotten in the pursuit of profits.

We need to be protected from ourselves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution isn't "sacred" to all libertarians. Most of us think that following the Constitution would certainly make for a better government, but even then some of us would go further. I'll simply refer to a post I made a few months ago for further explanation.

The idea of this thread can essentially be summed up by the quote in my signature.

"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

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm as strict a constructionist as anybody on this board, but the truth is that the Constitution does not limit the federal government in any way shape or form and you can take that statement any way you want to.

Let's assume that those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution are wrong. If this is the case then our "support" for the Constitution is unfounded and everything our government does and has done is perfectly constitutional. Therefore, if our goal is to limit government, the Constitution is certainly the wrong thing to put our trust into because it doesn't limit the government.

Now let's assume that we're correct in believing the Constitution was designed to strictly limit the federal government, and that much of what it does today is unconstitutional. Nothing changes. The federal government continues on as it always has in violation of the Constitution, and there's nothing we can do about it aside from a small victory here and there. In other words, we're correct but it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't stop the government from expanding regardless. So if the Constitution can't limit government the way it's supposed to what good is it really? None whatsoever.

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

 

[truthsaga]

Eliminating FDA, EPA, and other Federal Departments may seem extreme at first, but look into it.

FDA and EPA are tools of crony capitalists who want the benefits of capitalism, but want to close the doors to entry into the marketplace. As well as the ones who lobby the government are the ones who receive the rewards and those who do not are fined and purged out of the market by the regulators. It is a racket from both sides of political spectrum.

They have driven up costs, limited choices, and held back development of cheaper / safer products with their barriers to entry. It is a racket.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

While the constitution was a brilliant design of government, it was not designed perfectly. In my opinion, it could not have accounted for how society has evolved over the years.

It is my sincerest belief that while personal freedom and a free market are important American ideals, they needs limitations. Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that sounds good on paper, but its actual application as a national system would be crazy.

I'll be the first to admit that the government doesn't always get it right. However, in the interest of public well-being, sometimes even economic growth does need to be limited by government regulation.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

Can you imagine the implications if we did not have government agencies, like the FDA or FAA? The pharmaceutical industry, for instance, would become dangerous. If drug companies were under no authoritative review, what is to stop them from releasing potentially harmful products? Without the FDA, there would be no legal mandate for these food and drug companies to test the safety and effectiveness of their products.
Self-regulation is a slow process and only works to an extent. There are plenty of things that would slip through the cracks that consumers would not know about. Take the tobacco companies, for instance. There are already additives in cigarettes that make them more addicting. Is it really worth it to have these industries left unchecked? Take a minute and imagine what they could get away with. Imagine what they could do to their products for the sake of more profit.... it's a scary thought.

TAXATION

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.
If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.
This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth. And don't get it twisted -I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.
It isn't just the rich that need to pay taxes, of course. EVERYONE needs to put in their fair share for the sake of the greater good. I have no problem with paying higher taxes, so long as I know that the revenue is intended to make this country better (it doesn't always, I know).

WELFARE/UNEMPLOYMENT/FOOD STAMPS

I do understand that there are a lot of government moochers in this country, but that doesn't mean that these programs are unnecesssary and ineffective. Some people do need help when they are unable to stand on their own two feet. Also, it's not like it's easy to get into these programs. Have you ever seen the applications? They are huge, and leave little room for falsification.
Hell, I support the Republican proposal that people entering these programs should be drug-tested first. I think that it is a great compromise, and more of this government funding will ultimately go to the right people.


Like I said, the government isn't perfect; it certainly does over-reach from time to time. However, I think people have become so black-and-white when it comes to personal freedom. The idea has become over-romanticized in today's politics. The truth of the matter is that it is human nature for people to be selfish. People cannot handle certain personal freedoms. They just can't. For the sake of the greater good, people need limitations.
Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.

You Are A Freedom Hating Message Board Poster!

 

[g5000]

Eliminating FDA, EPA, and other Federal Departments may seem extreme at first, but look into it.

FDA and EPA are tools of crony capitalists who want the benefits of capitalism, but want to close the doors to entry into the marketplace. As well as the ones who lobby the government are the ones who receive the rewards and those who do not are fined and purged out of the market by the regulators. It is a racket from both sides of political spectrum.

They have driven up costs, limited choices, and held back development of cheaper / safer products with their barriers to entry. It is a racket.

I am aware that in some industries those who got there first with the most strive to keep out competition. They get the government to put its seal of approval on a trade organization which acts as the licensing authority for any up-and-comers, thereby assuring their control of the industry.

Like I said, what we got ain't perfect and needs tweaking. Not elimination.

 

[dblack]

The Constitution isn't sacred. But what I do value a great deal is the novel principle, initially embodied in the US Constitution, that the power we grant to government should be limited, both in scope and extent. Since it's ratification, the limits of the Constitution have been under assault from unscrupulous leaders eager to expand their power and influence.

Sadly, the last century saw the decline of most of those limitations and ushered in a new age of corporatism, where government is the answer to every problem and the final authority in all areas of our lives.

 

[g5000]

The Constitution isn't sacred. But what I do value a great deal is the novel principle, initially embodied in the US Constitution, that the power we grant to government should be limited, both in scope and extent. Since it's ratification, the limits of the Constitution have been under assault from unscrupulous leaders eager to expand their power and influence.

Sadly, the last century saw the decline of most of those limitations and ushered in a new age of corporatism, where government is the answer to every problem and the final authority in all areas of our lives.

I, too, am very concerned about the expansion of federal powers that has taken place. But I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I see crooks on Wall Street robbing the common man in broad daylight, with police protection. And that means not only is there too little regulation and policing, but that the police have been completely compromised and are complicit in these crimes.

At the same time, I see a whole new government department and cabinet position created which invades our privacy to such a degree that police states the world over must drool in envy. And that means there is too much government power.

It's not a single basket of problems we have. It is many many baskets of problems.

 

[dblack]

The Constitution isn't sacred. But what I do value a great deal is the novel principle, initially embodied in the US Constitution, that the power we grant to government should be limited, both in scope and extent. Since it's ratification, the limits of the Constitution have been under assault from unscrupulous leaders eager to expand their power and influence.

Sadly, the last century saw the decline of most of those limitations and ushered in a new age of corporatism, where government is the answer to every problem and the final authority in all areas of our lives.

I, too, am very concerned about the expansion of federal powers that has taken place. But I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I see crooks on Wall Street robbing the common man in broad daylight, with police protection. And that means not only is there too little regulation and policing, but that the police have been completely compromised and are complicit in these crimes.

At the same time, I see a whole new government department and cabinet position created which invades our privacy to such a degree that police states the world over must drool in envy. And that means there is too much government power.

It's not a single basket of problems we have. It is many many baskets of problems.

The things you're describing here are excellent examples of government that isn't properly limited. This is what I'm talking about by 'corporatist' age. The wealthy and influential use government to control us. They use regulation to get rich at our expense. They use welfare to make us dependent and cooperative. Now they're looking to use health care in the same fashion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Human rights and personal freedoms should be sacred to every American. The Constitution is the basic covenant between us and the gov't to protect those rights and freedoms, as opposed to limiting them. Gov't is supposed to be limited, it is supposed to serve it's citizens. And every citizen should be careful about surrendering those rights and freedoms, we should be opposed to a more powerful central gov't that eventually controls us instead of the other way around.

Assuming you mean Federal government when referring to ‘central government,’ remember also that state and local governments can be just as oppressive, if not more so. Consequently the Constitution places restrictions on Congress, state governments, and local governments with regard to civil liberties.

Otherwise, libertarians confuse the concepts of individual rights with ‘individual property owner rights,’ in that business owners should be allowed to run their businesses as they see fit, even if that business is run in an irresponsible manner, even if such business practices result in the injury or death of consumers.

Libertarians naïvely believe that ‘free market forces’ will drive such irresponsible concerns out of business, once the market community learns of the unscrupulous practices. The problem is libertarians fail to tell us what is an acceptable number of injured or dead patrons before a criminal business is indeed put out of business.

In any event, the issue is moot. Since 1824 the case law as been clear and consistent: Congress has broad regulatory authority granted it by the Commerce Clause, Congress has powers, both enumerated and unenumerated, granted it by the Constitution to regulate markets in the National interest.

The case law for those interested:

Commerce Clause – The Commerce Power of Congress