Libertarian Vs. Tea Party

[SemperFiUSMC]

The fact that liberty has been abused in the past is not justification for its future abuse. To concede everything that's happened in the past is to legitimize every encroachment in the future. As soon as it's passed and in place for a while, the pragmatist shrugs his shoulders and adjusts to his new world.

The 10th amendment wasn't killed by the 14th, but its power was adjusted downward. I don't have a problem with the BOR being incorporated to the states.

You seem to be saying that because the Commerce clause and the GW clause have been abused throughout our history, that you concede that the federal government has complete power over the states. I'll concede that the do in practice. I won't concede the moral argument, however.

Do you believe in natural rights? Or are you saying that since in practice our rights are only whatever our overlords say they are, that you just concede that fact and so there's no point in arguing the moral case?

You don't like being labeled a statist, but I'm having trouble seeing how you are not. I see you enjoy popping folks' uninformed ballons, and that's fine, but I'm not getting a picture of your closely held beliefs, or perhaps I am, though you seem to take exception to what your arguments imply.

Please clarify where you stand.

I am stating the facts on the ground as they currently exist, have existed, and will exist if unchanged. I say died, you say adjusted downward. We are saying the same thing. It's not just the BOR that are incorporated. It's everything that is written into the Constitution. Every Federal law. Every regulation. All incorporated. Most of the time I don't really argue moral points because I can't figure out how to get past reality.

I believe in the Socratic method. I encourage critical thought, not repetition of one liners taken out of context by thoughtless drones, whether I happen to agree with them or not. When I ask questions or make statements it is generally intended to provoke thought or encourage debate. At time I play devil's advocate questioning a position or statement even though I agree with it.

I think when you want to change something it is up to you to articulate and sell the change. Politics is a sale process.

Like with the drug thing. I honestly don't sit around and think about it a lot because I have no desire to do drugs. I'm not impacted by the legality one way or the other. An argument can be made that it a bigger picture issue, but I just don't see it that way. Yet. That's probably selfish, but it's my time, my thoughts, and I only have so many time available for either. Couple that with the fact I have a limited number of rides around the rock left so I'll decide what I do and don't want to think about. I generally value individualism over collectivism. Sometime that means I don't jump on the band wagon, even if I like the music.

I'm not sure I think of drug use in in terms of an inalienable right. I'm not sure I don't either. There may be justifible need for regulation. There may not. I think our efforts to curb drug use have utterly failed to curb their use. But by the same token on the surface I have reservations about legalization, but they are primarily policy oriented. I would like more information before I can make a decision. I don't jump to conclusions. It's a character flaw.

I've said I don't know how many times the disparity between alcohol and drugs is intellectually dishonest. A few morons take that as I think alcohol should be prohibited, as if I appear to be so stupid or naive to believe it was effective the first time.

The biggest issue that I have is that arguing for easing drug laws based on the personal liberty platform is a proven loser. Justly or unjustly, it's the reality. Reality is always the truth. So based on that reality there are three responses. Accept it. Change it. Complain about it. Sitting around and commiserating that you lack freedom to kill yourself if you so choose does absolutely nothing other than rile people up. It's not a solution to the problem. So my question is what is the winning argument? It's really that simple.

Sometimes things just aren't worth arguing over. Take the LTCH. I don't like having to pay $100 to get a license. I think it's wrong. I weighed the opportunity cost of being pissed off against the $100 fine. I chose to pay the fine and move on to things I enjoy, rather than engaging in hand wringing and lamenting. I know all the cliches about if you're willing to give up your freedom for security you deserve neither and the like. For $100 I never have to think about it again. And I don't.

I think it's funny when I read about our Founders and what great men they were (which they were) and how they wouldn't this or wouldn't that, when in fact they did this and that. The level of ignorance of history astounds me sometimes. Most people have no clue what our founders desired or expected as a result of the declaration of independence from England. They also claim things unconstitutional that are clearly written into the Constitution.

My closely held beliefs are just that. But in general I would say that I am a conservative in the traditional sense. A rugged individualist. I am against most government intervention in our lives. I neither want nor need a nanny or baby sitter. And I don't want to be one for anyone else unless I specifically choose to be. No one should be able to tell me I can't drink if I want to. Or make me if I don't. I want to pray to my God whenever and whereever I want without interference. If I want to pray outloud on a bus I don't want anyone telling me I can't.

I am pro-military and would strike down an enemy with such rapid and destructive force they would never want to cross us again. I am against using our military to hand out water bottle to earthquake victims or stand between two peoples that want to anihilate each other, both of whom we probably don't like anyway.

As always, the pronoun you is not personal. Sometimes you means me.

I hope that clarifies where I stand.

 

[dross]

I am stating the facts on the ground as they currently exist, have existed, and will exist if unchanged. I say died, you say adjusted downward. We are saying the same thing. It's not just the BOR that are incorporated. It's everything that is written into the Constitution. Every Federal law. Every regulation. All incorporated. Most of the time I don't really argue moral points because I can't figure out how to get past reality.

I believe in the Socratic method. I encourage critical thought, not repetition of one liners taken out of context by thoughtless drones, whether I happen to agree with them or not. When I ask questions or make statements it is generally intended to provoke thought or encourage debate. At time I play devil's advocate questioning a position or statement even though I agree with it.

I think when you want to change something it is up to you to articulate and sell the change. Politics is a sale process.

Like with the drug thing. I honestly don't sit around and think about it a lot because I have no desire to do drugs. I'm not impacted by the legality one way or the other. An argument can be made that it a bigger picture issue, but I just don't see it that way. Yet. That's probably selfish, but it's my time, my thoughts, and I only have so many time available for either. Couple that with the fact I have a limited number of rides around the rock left so I'll decide what I do and don't want to think about. I generally value individualism over collectivism. Sometime that means I don't jump on the band wagon, even if I like the music.

I'm not sure I think of drug use in in terms of an inalienable right. I'm not sure I don't either. There may be justifible need for regulation. There may not. I think our efforts to curb drug use have utterly failed to curb their use. But by the same token on the surface I have reservations about legalization, but they are primarily policy oriented. I would like more information before I can make a decision. I don't jump to conclusions. It's a character flaw.

I've said I don't know how many times the disparity between alcohol and drugs is intellectually dishonest. A few morons take that as I think alcohol should be prohibited, as if I appear to be so stupid or naive to believe it was effective the first time.

The biggest issue that I have is that arguing for easing drug laws based on the personal liberty platform is a proven loser. Justly or unjustly, it's the reality. Reality is always the truth. So based on that reality there are three responses. Accept it. Change it. Complain about it. Sitting around and commiserating that you lack freedom to kill yourself if you so choose does absolutely nothing other than rile people up. It's not a solution to the problem. So my question is what is the winning argument? It's really that simple.

Sometimes things just aren't worth arguing over. Take the LTCH. I don't like having to pay $100 to get a license. I think it's wrong. I weighed the opportunity cost of being pissed off against the $100 fine. I chose to pay the fine and move on to things I enjoy, rather than engaging in hand wringing and lamenting. I know all the cliches about if you're willing to give up your freedom for security you deserve neither and the like. For $100 I never have to think about it again. And I don't.

I think it's funny when I read about our Founders and what great men they were (which they were) and how they wouldn't this or wouldn't that, when in fact they did this and that. The level of ignorance of history astounds me sometimes. Most people have no clue what our founders desired or expected as a result of the declaration of independence from England. They also claim things unconstitutional that are clearly written into the Constitution.

My closely held beliefs are just that. But in general I would say that I am a conservative in the traditional sense. A rugged individualist. I am against most government intervention in our lives. I neither want nor need a nanny or baby sitter. And I don't want to be one for anyone else unless I specifically choose to be. No one should be able to tell me I can't drink if I want to. Or make me if I don't. I want to pray to my God whenever and whereever I want without interference. If I want to pray outloud on a bus I don't want anyone telling me I can't.

I am pro-military and would strike down an enemy with such rapid and destructive force they would never want to cross us again. I am against using our military to hand out water bottle to earthquake victims or stand between two peoples that want to anihilate each other, both of whom we probably don't like anyway.

As always, the pronoun you is not personal. Sometimes you means me.

I hope that clarifies where I stand.

So, you're admitting you're a big ol' poopie-head?

I get what you're saying. It sounds like we're not too far off, you're just a little more on the pragmatist side of the elephant.

A couple of things. I agree with you about the founders. The were just as flawed and tempted by the convenience of coercion as everyone else who has ever had power. People forget that Adams and Jefferson, perhaps the most deserving of the title "founding fathers" spent the last half of their lives estranged based on their disagreements about politics.

You say that it is the person who wants to change the way things are who must articulate his position. I respectfully disagree. I think it's the person who wants to violate my natural rights who must articulate his position, regardless of how much history stands behind him.

In practice, of course, if you want changes to be made, you must be the salesman. Even so, I won't give up the moral high ground, even while nodding to the practical considerations.

All that said, I appreciate your explanation. Hope spilling your guts like that didn't get you all teary-eyed or anything. We paratroopers don't go in for crying much, but you jarheads always were a sensitive bunch.

 

[photoshooter]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes...

Commerce between independent powers or communities is universally regulated by duties and imposts. It was so regulated by the States before the adoption of this Constitution, equally in respect to each other and to foreign powers. The goods and vessels employed in the trade are the only subjects of regulation. It can act on none other. A power, then, to impose such duties and imposts in regard to foreign nations and to prevent any on the trade between the States was the only power granted. - President James Monroe 1822

The Constitution states Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. That is undebatable.

No. It's not. The debate lies in the meaning of the word "regulate."

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjjCNVOsh5c&feature=sub"]YouTube - Unconstitutional Government - Perverting the Commerce Clause[/ame]

Key issue around minute 2:00

As you stated, President Washington went to "war" in the Whiskey rebellion over.... Taxes. Not control over the content of whiskey, or where whiskey could be distilled, or where it could be sold, or who could imbibe it... it was over taxes.

The President's actions vs the Whiskey rebellion was not about an over-reaching federal bureaucracy telling us what we can and cannot do. The Whiskey rebellion was about taxes. Which is where the original intent on the "regulate interstate commerce" was placed.

Our meaning of "regulate" is not the same as was understood when the Constitution was framed. The state has moved the idea of "regulate" into a much broader meaning where the Federal Govt can interfere in commerce anywhere for any reason.

Just as the word "Gay" has changed in meaning, so has the word "regulate" - as the Judge says, it's former meaning was "to make regular between the states" in context of Article I, sect 8.

What about the Federalist?

In Federalist No. 42 (9th Para), Madison said

…A very material object of this power [to regulate commerce] was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State…ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former…
​

Madison shows us that trade between the states was not "regular" - in that states were imposing tariffs on each others goods to favor goods from their own states over those of other states.

The federal govt was granted the power to tax goods in order to keep the commerce between the states regular. There is no evidence that the much broader meaning of "regulate" was ever intended. But there is much inferred evidence that the more limited meaning was intended.

Rarely do I ever quote Progressive President Woodrow Wilson, but this bit from in his book, Constitutional Government in the United States, gives insight as to the meaning of the word "regulate" as applied the the commerce clause in the early 20th century:

Its power is “to regulate commerce between the States,” and the attempts now made during every session of Congress to carry the implications of that power beyond the utmost boundaries of reasonable and honest inference show that the only limits likely to be observed by politicians are those set by the good sense and conservative temper of the country. The proposed Federal legislation with regard to the regulation of child labor affords a striking example. If the power to regulate commerce between the States can be stretched to include the regulation of labor in mills and factories, it can be made to embrace every particular of the industrial organization and action of the country. The only limitations Congress would observe, should the Supreme Court assent to such obviously absurd extravagancies of interpretation, would be the limitations of opinion and of circumstance.

The courts have further usurped additional powers from the states with this clause, that the framers had no intent of giving to the federal govt. The grossest misapplication of this in the Judiciary was in: Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, yes, the power of the federal govt to impose laws about what we can and cannot do through the Instate Commerce Clause is very much in dispute.