subversive science wrote:
So the answer is yes, the Commerce Clause violates Libertarian tenets, but in practice the clause is necessary for effective governance.
Yes and no. The Commerce Clause as applied most certainly violates Libertarian tenets...not to mention constitutional original intent. As originally intended it does not necessarily do so because the original intent was that the power was granted in order to preserve and protect the Union itself by regulating the actions of the several states in their commercial interactions with other states. States, you see, have no rights. They, like Congress, have only powers and authorities granted to them by the people, which may be amended or revoked by the people at will. One of the only legitimate functions of the federal government is to adjudicate disputes between the competing political bodies of the several states as a "super legislature" made up of representatives from each of the states. But the purpose of the federal government is (or should be) to deal ONLY with those things that cannot be effectively regulated or dealt with by the states themselves, ALL of which are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution itself, which provides exact and precise instruction on what, and ONLY what the Congress has power to legislate. Everything else not mentioned is left to the states or the people. Is this power to adjudicate disputes among the states necessary? Yes. Does it comport with Libertarianism? Yes.
By illegally redefining the scope of the Commerce Clause the Supreme Court, in cahoots with the Congress itself as well as the President, the intended scope and power of the federal government has been turned from oversight of the relations among the states and necessary things like coinage, post roads and national military actions into a despotic and tyrannical micromanager of the daily lives of ordinary citizens, something that was never, ever, ever contemplated by the Founders.
The best solution to the vast majority of the problems we face today in the United States is a constitutional amendment of the Commerce Clause to make it explicit that insofar as interstate commerce is concerned, Congress' and the Executive branch's power and authority extends only to adjudicating and resolving disputes regarding actual movement of goods or persons in interstate commerce brought to it by the legislatures of the several states themselves. In other words, Congress would have no power to regulate any actual commerce by citizens, it would only have the power to regulate the laws of the legislatures of the states where such laws interfere with or impose duties or taxes on the passage of goods or persons physically across state lines...and NOTHING else.
Considering all of your previous arguments have hinged on some archetype Libertarian society where mere hard work confers economic prosperity
I've never said any such thing, so that's a strawman argument.
and those who are denied insurance coverage can simply spend tens-to-hundreds of thousands of dollars on medical procedures,
If they want to, and can do so. Otherwise they may perhaps have to rely upon the voluntary charity of their community...or they may perhaps suffer the consequences of fate and their lifestyle choices, which includes dying of some medical condition.
that's not moving the goal posts, that's changing the playing field to justify the fact that the Constitution does not strictly conform to your contrived Libertarian existence.
No it's not.
Basically, your arguments are B.S. because they're based on shitty assumptions, and when those assumptions are questioned you either evade the charges or try to shift the basis of your arguments.
Please be specific.
However, if you insist on using idealized realities, then when the government death panel denies your procedure, you can just pay for it yourself.
[/quote]
Yes, I can. Or not. But in any case I can find no rational, logical, ethical or moral justification for using the jackbooted thugs with machine guns as my proxy to extract from other people what I think I need or want by way of medical care. The simple fact is that sometimes you die. To me it's better to die than it is to become a thief and steal from others. I understand that the proletarian dependent class has been well indoctrinated to believe that anybody who has more than they do is evil and must be stripped of their property and enslaved to the service of others, but that's just Marxist propaganda and ideological blindness, not reason.
Libertarians fully believe in helping others, particularly those in genuine need, because it is the moral, ethical, charitable, altruistic thing to do and in most cases is in our enlightened and rational self-interest to charitable and helpful to the disadvantaged for many reasons, not the least of which is, as MrJonno puts it, to keep the ravening hordes of starving proletarian dependents from attacking us.
The essential difference between Libertarianism and literally every other form of government is that Libertarians are insistent on prohibiting the government from trying to achieve social good by force and coercion. Instead Libertarians believe that at worst government's legitimate duty is to PERSUADE people to VOLUNTARILY donate their time and goods to help the destitute and sick and those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in dire economic circumstances.
It is NOT the case that Libertarians are selfish pricks who care for no one but themselves. This is a classic strawman built by ignoramuses and the deliberately mendacious Marxists among us as a simplistic Alinsky-style attack on Libertarianism that has exactly zero basis in truth or Libertarian philosophy.
Libertarians merely eschew the use of force or fraud by anyone, including the government, to compel people to labor on behalf of or contribute to the welfare of anyone else.
This does NOT mean that Libertarians are unwilling to labor on behalf of or contribute to the welfare of others, merely that they object to being ordered to do so under threat of violence and imprisonment.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
). Filburn's extra 239 bushels of wheat were not sold, they were used to feed his own family and livestock on his own property, none of which entered commerce either, being consumed on the farm by Filburn and his family.
