Socialized medicine's inevitable death panels

[Seth]

So the answer is yes, the Commerce Clause violates Libertarian tenets, but in practice the clause is necessary for effective governance.

I see you avoided quoting any of Seth's actual post, as it would show how ridiculous your position is. Regulating wheat that someone grows on his own farm for his own family's consumption, that never crosses a state border, is not "interstate commerce" by any reasonable interpretation. The government just used that excuse to extend Federal power well beyond the limits of the Constitution.

All Seth did was attempt to obfuscate a rather straightforward incompatibility between Libertarianism and the Constitution. The Constitution may embody many of the principles of Libertarianism, but it is not a solely Libertarian document.

I never suggested it was.

Moreover, it has to be applied to an ever evolving world in a practical manner, which means interpreting it in the context of modern society.

No, it does not. You're just parroting the typical Progressive canard that the Constitution must be a "living document" that changes with the changing needs and desires of society. That's not the purpose or intent of a Constitution, particularly not our Constitution.

Our Constitution places permanent, inviolable limits on what powers and authorities the federal government, through Congress and the Administrative branch, can exercise. As I just discussed in my last post, the subornation of the Constitution has been through the egregious and entirely unlawful abuse of the Commerce Clause authority to expand the sphere of influence of the federal government. This illegal expansion began in earnest with Woodrow Wilson (although traces of the pretension to power were seen as far back as 1894) and hit its true stride with FDR. Literally all of the micromanaging regulations that burden us are "authorized" by the egregious abuse of the Commerce Clause by the courts, the Congress and the administration.

Amend the Commerce Clause and quite literally 90 percent of the federal bureaucracy vanishes overnight, because it is the Commerce Clause that is cited by the administration and Congress as their authority to create things like the EPA, DEA, and other federal agencies that have no legitimate authority to regulate or enforce anything at all.

Every single function that the federal government performs today other than those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution can more effectively and economically done by the states themselves, where the power to regulate is devolved much closer to the people whom the laws affect and who have actual control over the government that makes those laws, which was the express intent of the Founders.

Constitutionality is not a sufficient condition for Libertarianism, nor vice versa, and to suggest that it is belies a simplistic and incomplete understanding of Libertarianism.

It depends on how you define "constitutionality." The original intent of the Founders was very close to idealized Libertarianism, and our nation functioned quite well that way for a hundred and fifty years...until the Progressives and Marxists came along.

[MrJonno]

To me it's better to die than it is to become a thief and steal from others.

No sane person believes that, I don't think even in reality Seth believes that either.

I have absolute no problems saying better to be a thief than be dead (in fact better to eat babies especially christian ones daily for breakfast than be dead)

[Gallstones]

[piscator]

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.

Languid lavender polemics aside, if you think you are a finer and more discerning interpreter of the Constitution than SCOTUS, you're welcome to harpoon and flense Wickard before them until it bleeds black blood and rolls out dead.
Until that fateful day, you'll have to abide by SCOTUS' interpretation of the US Constitution or suffer the consequences, because the Court's interpretations are binding, your guesses as to the "Intents of the Founders" are not.

[Seth]

To me it's better to die than it is to become a thief and steal from others.

No sane person believes that, I don't think even in reality Seth believes that either.

I have absolute no problems saying better to be a thief than be dead (in fact better to eat babies especially christian ones daily for breakfast than be dead)

That's the difference between us, I have morals and ethics.

[Seth]

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.

Languid lavender polemics aside, if you think you are a finer and more discerning interpreter of the Constitution than SCOTUS, you're welcome to harpoon and flense Wickard before them until it bleeds black blood and rolls out dead.
Until that fateful day, you'll have to abide by SCOTUS' interpretation of the US Constitution or suffer the consequences, because the Court's interpretations are binding, your guesses as to the "Intents of the Founders" are not.

True, but irrelevant in this context. All you're doing is committing the error of a fallacious appeal to common practice.

[piscator]

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.

Languid lavender polemics aside, if you think you are a finer and more discerning interpreter of the Constitution than SCOTUS, you're welcome to harpoon and flense Wickard before them until it bleeds black blood and rolls out dead.
Until that fateful day, you'll have to abide by SCOTUS' interpretation of the US Constitution or suffer the consequences, because the Court's interpretations are binding, your guesses as to the "Intents of the Founders" are not.

True, but irrelevant in this context. All you're doing is committing the error of a fallacious appeal to common practice.

Read your Constitution, SCOTUS interprets. Therefore, Wickers is, ipso facto, legal and constitutional - You're just not in touch with reality.
And yeah, it's common practice to take issues with SCOTUS to SCOTUS, that's what the US Constitution provides for. Go pioneer another way.

I use a turn signal before I change lanes. Is that fallacious?

[Seth]

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.

Languid lavender polemics aside, if you think you are a finer and more discerning interpreter of the Constitution than SCOTUS, you're welcome to harpoon and flense Wickard before them until it bleeds black blood and rolls out dead.
Until that fateful day, you'll have to abide by SCOTUS' interpretation of the US Constitution or suffer the consequences, because the Court's interpretations are binding, your guesses as to the "Intents of the Founders" are not.

True, but irrelevant in this context. All you're doing is committing the error of a fallacious appeal to common practice.

Read your Constitution, SCOTUS interprets. Therefore, Wickers is, ipso facto, legal and constitutional - You're just not in touch with reality.

Actually, SCOTUS "interprets" only because SCOTUS says it interprets. Marbury v. Madison. Self-assumed and highly suspect authority. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to interpret the Constitution.

And yeah, it's common practice to take issues with SCOTUS to SCOTUS, that's what the US Constitution provides for. Go pioneer another way.

I use a turn signal before I change lanes. Is that fallacious?

It is if you cannot or will not provide a rational argument in support of why the regulation that requires you to do so passes Constitutional muster.

Saying "That's how it is and you can't dispute it" is a weak form of evasion that is the archetypical invocation of the fallacious appeal to common practice.

I challenge you to cite the provision of the Constitution that grants to the Supreme Court the authority to pass judgment on the "interpretation" of Constitutional provisions.

In point of fact that power is reserved exclusively to the Congress and the People through amendment of the Constitution itself.

Again, go read the criticisms of Marbury v. Madison.

[piscator]

Saying "That's how it is and you can't dispute it" is a weak form of evasion that is the archetypical invocation of the fallacious appeal to common practice.

I challenge you to cite the provision of the Constitution that grants to the Supreme Court the authority to pass judgment on the "interpretation" of Constitutional provisions.

I challenge you to kiss my ass and tell me whether the Legislative or Executive branches should be tasked with interpreting the Constitution?

You go on like the people who don't like Brown or Roe and think they can invoke some "Higher" authority to make things how they think they ought to be.
But if it ever comes to a test, they don't get any further than some Kiwi who can't believe the authorities here allow us to possess firearms...


And I'm not intoning, "That's the way it's always been". I'm merely pointing out how far you've strayed from the way the world works with all your prescriptive statements.

The courts interpret the laws. Tough teabags if you don't like it. Or just grow up and accept some things about the world as it is, rather than how you think it ought to be, Young Master Quixote.

[MrJonno]

To me it's better to die than it is to become a thief and steal from others.

No sane person believes that, I don't think even in reality Seth believes that either.

I have absolute no problems saying better to be a thief than be dead (in fact better to eat babies especially christian ones daily for breakfast than be dead)

That's the difference between us, I have morals and ethics.

The moral and ethical thing to do is to put life (including your own) above property (including someone elses)

When it comes to life versus life its a bit more complicated but its no brainer when it comes to property. If you put your property above someone else life then you are a murderer

[pErvinalia]

To me it's better to die than it is to become a thief and steal from others.

No sane person believes that, I don't think even in reality Seth believes that either.

Yep. It's strange that an alleged rational thinker believes it better to be dead than alive.

And besides, Seth steals from interstate taxpayers every time he consumes state services in those states.

[subversive science]

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.

Give me one example of a FUNCTIONING modern government in which the majority of citizens do not contribute a share of property to society.

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.

No one is forcing you to work or contribute. You are more than welcome to remove yourself from society by living off the grid, thereby absolving you of your responsibilities to modern societal life.

[Seth]

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.

Give me one example of a FUNCTIONING modern government in which the majority of citizens do not contribute a share of property to society.

False dilemma. The question is not whether or not contributions from citizens to make society (not government) function are necessary, it's how the government goes about extracting those contributions from the citizens. Classic tax-based governance assumes two things as a premise for it's use of coercive force: First, it presumes that citizens will not voluntarily contribute to necessary government programs; and second, it presumes that legislators and bureaucrats, whether elected, appointed or installed, are better suited to decide how an individual spends the fruits of his labor than the individual is and that therefore it is right and proper to engage the machinery of tyrannical majority to extract from the individual what the government deems to be his "fair share" according to his ability to provide that share.

Libertarians believe that the best way to determine whether a publicly funded program or project is worthwhile and worthy is to put the matter to the populace by educating them carefully on the costs and benefits of the program or project and then asking them to contribute funds voluntarily towards the completion of that particular program or project.

If the program or project is a worthy one in the eyes of the public, then they will be willing to contribute to that cause without being forcibly coerced into doing so against their will.

How many "bridges to nowhere" would be built if people simply had the option of defunding the plan by refusing to pay for them?

On a local basis this works very well. Also at the state level. At the federal level, because federal goals are broader, citizens should have broader choices about what they are willing to fund and what they are not. A simple checkoff system on one's tax return would allocate one's tax burden (this is still coercive to some degree, but a good first step in eliminating coercive taxation) to specific areas of national government or to specific nationwide projects, and Congress would be required to spend that taxpayer's money only on those allocated activities.

This gives a near real-time referendum on government activities and programs and gives the public the ultimate control over how and on what their representatives spend the citizenry's money. Unpopular programs will not be funded and will then go away, while popular ones will flourish, and pork-barrel spending will all but disappear because every decision about spending money will be either ratified or rejected by the electorate to one degree or another.

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.

No one is forcing you to work or contribute. You are more than welcome to remove yourself from society by living off the grid, thereby absolving you of your responsibilities to modern societal life.

Problem with that claim is that I have a right to work to provide for myself and my family. I have a right to trade with others for the things I need or want that you cannot deny to me merely because I object to being enslaved to your interests. Once again it's important to distinguish between taxation imposed to pay a fair share of the costs of providing public services and amenities, like electrical power or sewer systems or one's use of a public park or highway and purely redistributive taxation that has no other purpose than to take the wealth from one person and transfer it more or less directly to another person who has less wealth in order to meet that second person's needs or desires.

The first form of taxation is perfectly legitimate because using a public amenity without paying for it is an initiation of fraud upon those who have paid for the amenity.

The second form of taxation is completely illegitimate because the taxed individual has done nothing to create an economic responsibility for the other person that justifies the government's use of force to strip him of his wealth.

[Seth]

To me it's better to die than it is to become a thief and steal from others.

No sane person believes that, I don't think even in reality Seth believes that either.

I have absolute no problems saying better to be a thief than be dead (in fact better to eat babies especially christian ones daily for breakfast than be dead)

That's the difference between us, I have morals and ethics.

The moral and ethical thing to do is to put life (including your own) above property (including someone elses)

I disagree.

When it comes to life versus life its a bit more complicated but its no brainer when it comes to property. If you put your property above someone else life then you are a murderer

It depends on who wants my property, for what reason, and whether they are worthy of the expropriation of my labor that is inherent in taking my property.

It also depends on how the other individual proposes to acquire my property.

Show yourself to be a person of value and worthy of my labor and ask me politely for assistance and I will grant you what I feel I can afford to grant you by way of my labor.

Come at me with a weapon demanding my property or labor by force and I will meet you with overwhelming force to deny you access to my property or my labor.

[Seth]

To me it's better to die than it is to become a thief and steal from others.

No sane person believes that, I don't think even in reality Seth believes that either.

Yep. It's strange that an alleged rational thinker believes it better to be dead than alive.

And besides, Seth steals from interstate taxpayers every time he consumes state services in those states.

Do I? Prove it.