Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

You pay for your candidate's ideas

HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 12:03:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I heard a comedian a few nights ago say "Wouldn't it be great if the only people who had to pay taxes were the ones who's candidate won?" Sounds fair to me, but which party do you think most Americans would vote for if that were the case?
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 12:31:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sounds absurd. It does have a ring of justice to it, of course, which is why you are attracted to the idea... The problem is the balance between representing the people correctly and being able to have enough people to pay the taxes. People are not going to submit to this unless the parties are much more sharp in identifying the voter's needs... Suffice to say, tea-partiers aren't going to be voting for RINOs and and then paying their dues when they win! So while this process would most likely facilitate creating more diversification of parties, it would also make the parties smaller and by the time one party came out on top its numbers would be so dwindled that the fraction of the population it represents would have no chance of paying everyone's taxes.

Of course the answer you are looking for is that people would be much less likely to vote Dem because they tend to spend more. I personally don't see a fair distinction between public and private sector spending under the current paradigm, however, because I think that the private sector holds some pretty unjust advantages in acquiring their capital and I have no faith that their selfish expenditures are going to really help me out as much as right-wingers claim it will.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 4:13:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 12:31:28 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Sounds absurd. It does have a ring of justice to it, of course, which is why you are attracted to the idea... The problem is the balance between representing the people correctly and being able to have enough people to pay the taxes. People are not going to submit to this unless the parties are much more sharp in identifying the voter's needs... Suffice to say, tea-partiers aren't going to be voting for RINOs and and then paying their dues when they win! So while this process would most likely facilitate creating more diversification of parties, it would also make the parties smaller and by the time one party came out on top its numbers would be so dwindled that the fraction of the population it represents would have no chance of paying everyone's taxes.

Of course the answer you are looking for is that people would be much less likely to vote Dem because they tend to spend more. I personally don't see a fair distinction between public and private sector spending under the current paradigm, however, because I think that the private sector holds some pretty unjust advantages in acquiring their capital and I have no faith that their selfish expenditures are going to really help me out as much as right-wingers claim it will.

I think nobody in their right mind (accept those with money to burn) would vote democrat or republican. Neither party knows how to operate within a budget that can be paid using acceptable levels of taxation. I think it would be interesting to see how people would vote if they had to put their money where their mouths were. I don't think it's a stretch to assume most would probably vote for the lowest taxing party that proposed only the most essential of government services.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 4:27:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 4:15:30 PM, comoncents wrote:
I helped pay for this monstrosity...




Why are people just now realizing this country doesn't resemble the America our founding fathers tried to build. The framers of our constitution have been spinning in their graves since FDR. Just now waking up to smell the coffee after being asleep at the wheel for nearly a century. Too funny.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 4:31:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 4:27:58 PM, HandsOff wrote:
At 9/24/2010 4:15:30 PM, comoncents wrote:
I helped pay for this monstrosity...





Why are people just now realizing this country doesn't resemble the America our founding fathers tried to build. The framers of our constitution have been spinning in their graves since FDR.

Since Teddy! They would have just taken another spin with FDR.

Just now waking up to smell the coffee after being asleep at the wheel for nearly a century. Too funny.

And too late!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 3:03:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Right, because the ideas of the Founding Fathers from the 18th Century are completley relevant and applicable in the 21st century.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 3:06:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
who would vote at all?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 5:31:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 3:03:17 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Right, because the ideas of the Founding Fathers from the 18th Century are completley relevant and applicable in the 21st century.

I'm glad we agree. Althought they tend to come out of the closet now and then, too many liberals will not admit they have no allegiance to any ideas that are pre-FDR (like say the constitution).
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 5:37:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 5:31:02 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'm glad we agree. Althought they tend to come out of the closet now and then, too many liberals will not admit they have no allegiance to any ideas that are pre-FDR (like say the constitution).

You know, just because folks don't agree with the interpretation you've taken towards the constitution, doesn't mean they do not have an "allegiance" to the constitution. Like any writing on a piece of paper, the weight of what it says and how you interpret the commands written down are subjective by nature. And yes, it's plainly obvious the constitution is a piece of paper.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 5:39:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 5:37:03 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/29/2010 5:31:02 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'm glad we agree. Althought they tend to come out of the closet now and then, too many liberals will not admit they have no allegiance to any ideas that are pre-FDR (like say the constitution).

You know, just because folks don't agree with the interpretation you've taken towards the constitution, doesn't mean they do not have an "allegiance" to the constitution. Like any writing on a piece of paper, the weight of what it says and how you interpret the commands written down are subjective by nature. And yes, it's plainly obvious the constitution is a piece of paper.

What is your subjective interpretation of the 10th amendment?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 5:40:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 5:39:25 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
What is your subjective interpretation of the 10th amendment?

To be honest, I don't even know what the 10th Amendment is. I'm Canadian, eh.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 5:45:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 5:40:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/29/2010 5:39:25 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
What is your subjective interpretation of the 10th amendment?

To be honest, I don't even know what the 10th Amendment is. I'm Canadian, eh.

Oh right.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I think it pretty clearly says that if a power is not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 5:51:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree with this it could work . . . we have the technology . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 5:52:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 5:45:35 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Oh right.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I think it pretty clearly says that if a power is not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power.

See, the problem is that the rest of the Constitution can be interpreted in different ways as to give the USFG powers that are perfectly within this artificial limit. So long as the other parts of the Constitution remain ambiguous, this remains limp, and note that unlike your statement, it doesn't say "specific, word-by-word powers" - it simply said the powers delegated within the frame of the Constitution are the purview of t USFG. If that's not specifically laid out, then you can go pretty wild, as I'm sure you no doubt think they have.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 5:56:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 5:51:29 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I agree with this it could work . . . we have the technology . . .


Now I agree slightly less but we still have the technology . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 6:02:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 5:52:22 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/29/2010 5:45:35 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Oh right.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I think it pretty clearly says that if a power is not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power.

See, the problem is that the rest of the Constitution can be interpreted in different ways as to give the USFG powers that are perfectly within this artificial limit. So long as the other parts of the Constitution remain ambiguous, this remains limp, and note that unlike your statement, it doesn't say "specific, word-by-word powers" - it simply said the powers delegated within the frame of the Constitution are the purview of t USFG. If that's not specifically laid out, then you can go pretty wild, as I'm sure you no doubt think they have.

What about clauses like "general welfare"? It's been interpreted to mean a policy that enhances the welfare of a minority at the expense of the majority, which covers pretty much every possible policy. If that's what it means, then why have a constitution at all?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 6:09:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 5:56:08 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 9/29/2010 5:51:29 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I agree with this it could work . . . we have the technology . . .


Now I agree slightly less but we still have the technology . . .

You are killing me here . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 6:13:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 6:02:03 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
What about clauses like "general welfare"? It's been interpreted to mean a policy that enhances the welfare of a minority at the expense of the majority, which covers pretty much every possible policy.

If that's what it means, then why have a constitution at all?

To make it legal, of course.

Actually, a constitution is obviously meant to bind, but it's also meant to promote certain things as well. I can't speak for the US Constitution, but most modern constitutions limit the powers of the state while providing for certain powers as well - positive and negative rights, yes? A constitution in liberal democracies is supposed to support a balance between the restrictions on government, and the powers the government should have in order to provide for its citizens.

Your ideology, however, is of the view that negative rights and constitutions which limit the power of the state is the only way to go, because it keeps the state at a basic minimum of its duties (military, courts, infrastructure, etc.) and individuals provide for themselves. It's an ideological schism, really, for you, because the US is modelled as a liberal democracy, more or less.

So if the general welfare clause is used to promote the rights of minorities, it's because liberal democracies and the constitutions that go with them are of the thought that the state has to provide and enshrine the rights of those minorities, especially if there is a clear case of the majority abusing them. It's that interventionism in the name of sacred liberal ideas on equal right that bothers people of your leaning, but a constitution is certainly needed to help lay out the limits and the provisions government can make in that regard.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 6:20:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 6:13:01 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/29/2010 6:02:03 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
What about clauses like "general welfare"? It's been interpreted to mean a policy that enhances the welfare of a minority at the expense of the majority, which covers pretty much every possible policy.

If that's what it means, then why have a constitution at all?

To make it legal, of course.

Actually, a constitution is obviously meant to bind, but it's also meant to promote certain things as well. I can't speak for the US Constitution, but most modern constitutions limit the powers of the state while providing for certain powers as well - positive and negative rights, yes? A constitution in liberal democracies is supposed to support a balance between the restrictions on government, and the powers the government should have in order to provide for its citizens.

Your ideology, however, is of the view that negative rights and constitutions which limit the power of the state is the only way to go, because it keeps the state at a basic minimum of its duties (military, courts, infrastructure, etc.) and individuals provide for themselves. It's an ideological schism, really, for you, because the US is modelled as a liberal democracy, more or less.

So if the general welfare clause is used to promote the rights of minorities, it's because liberal democracies and the constitutions that go with them are of the thought that the state has to provide and enshrine the rights of those minorities, especially if there is a clear case of the majority abusing them. It's that interventionism in the name of sacred liberal ideas on equal right that bothers people of your leaning, but a constitution is certainly needed to help lay out the limits and the provisions government can make in that regard.

The problem with interpreting the Constitution in that broad way is that it means that there are no real limits to government power. If the federal government can both promote the positive rights of minorities, and decide what those rights are (since there are no mention in the Constitution of the positive rights that modern liberals claim that people have), then it can do whatever it wants. If the Constitution can change in meaning over time (A constitutional amendment was required for alcohol prohibition, but not for banning any other drug. The constitution says nothing about alcohol or any other drug, so there's no reason that there should be a legal difference between the two bans), then it can't really be said to mean anything.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 6:38:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 6:20:38 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The problem with interpreting the Constitution in that broad way is that it means that there are no real limits to government power. If the federal government can both promote the positive rights of minorities, and decide what those rights are (since there are no mention in the Constitution of the positive rights that modern liberals claim that people have), then it can do whatever it wants. If the Constitution can change in meaning over time (A constitutional amendment was required for alcohol prohibition, but not for banning any other drug. The constitution says nothing about alcohol or any other drug, so there's no reason that there should be a legal difference between the two bans), then it can't really be said to mean anything.

I disagree. A constitution is still highly needed for the exact reasons that it does mean something in terms of legal and judicial powers that the state and individuals living under the state's constitution have. It's not as if there are no Constitutional restrictions on everything the government does, it just depends on what powers are actually written into that Constitution to prevent or support what the government does. Things aren't as wild as people like to claim, and on average, the US Constitution prevents a lot more than it provides even in terms of what the modern state or judiciary does. Prop 8's overturning, for example, is not simply a case of "liberal activist judges" - it's a Constitutional question about whether a majority, using the power of the state, has the right to prevent minority rights. In fact, if you look at it, the Constitution is preventing a perceived abuse by the state from being sanctioned.

This is why it's important to say that a Constitution prevents as much as it provides. Civil rights are a provision of the state, and limits in the Constitution on the state's power to abridge that provision are a prevention. It's this interplay that liberal democratic constitutions strive for.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 6:55:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 6:38:48 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/29/2010 6:20:38 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The problem with interpreting the Constitution in that broad way is that it means that there are no real limits to government power. If the federal government can both promote the positive rights of minorities, and decide what those rights are (since there are no mention in the Constitution of the positive rights that modern liberals claim that people have), then it can do whatever it wants. If the Constitution can change in meaning over time (A constitutional amendment was required for alcohol prohibition, but not for banning any other drug. The constitution says nothing about alcohol or any other drug, so there's no reason that there should be a legal difference between the two bans), then it can't really be said to mean anything.

I disagree. A constitution is still highly needed for the exact reasons that it does mean something in terms of legal and judicial powers that the state and individuals living under the state's constitution have. It's not as if there are no Constitutional restrictions on everything the government does, it just depends on what powers are actually written into that Constitution to prevent or support what the government does. Things aren't as wild as people like to claim, and on average, the US Constitution prevents a lot more than it provides even in terms of what the modern state or judiciary does. Prop 8's overturning, for example, is not simply a case of "liberal activist judges" - it's a Constitutional question about whether a majority, using the power of the state, has the right to prevent minority rights. In fact, if you look at it, the Constitution is preventing a perceived abuse by the state from being sanctioned.

This is why it's important to say that a Constitution prevents as much as it provides. Civil rights are a provision of the state, and limits in the Constitution on the state's power to abridge that provision are a prevention. It's this interplay that liberal democratic constitutions strive for.

The Constitution was used to overturn Prop 8, yes, but it also allowed the Defense of Marriage Act. So I wouldn't say that protecting the rights of gays is one of the Constitution's strong points.

As for the Constitution preventing much more than it provides, I don't see how you could possibly believe this. How important are the things that the government is forced to not do vs the things that it is allowed to do? The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, the drug war, welfare, stimulus programs, bailouts, the Fed, the regulatory state, corporate welfare, "anti-terrorism" civil liberties violations, and I'm sure other things that I can't think of off of the top of my head vs. occasionally defending the rights of gays and other persecuted minorities, upholding the 2nd amendment when there are clear and extreme violations, and what else? The federal courts don't prevent even close to the amount of things they allow.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 7:05:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 6:55:32 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The Constitution was used to overturn Prop 8, yes, but it also allowed the Defense of Marriage Act. So I wouldn't say that protecting the rights of gays is one of the Constitution's strong points.

The Constitution is essentially neutral on most subjects, aye. It's not the Constitution that cares about these issues and will fall for them either way, it's the folks who are pushing their ideology through legal channels. You have to remember that a constitution cannot provide for every single specific issue, it can only generalize and give direction. It's up to the courts, the politicians, and the people to fill in the gaps.

As for the Constitution preventing much more than it provides, I don't see how you could possibly believe this. How important are the things that the government is forced to not do vs the things that it is allowed to do? The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, the drug war, welfare, stimulus programs, bailouts, the Fed, the regulatory state, corporate welfare, "anti-terrorism" civil liberties violations, and I'm sure other things that I can't think of off of the top of my head vs. occasionally defending the rights of gays and other persecuted minorities, upholding the 2nd amendment when there are clear and extreme violations, and what else? The federal courts don't prevent even close to the amount of things they allow.

This is a biased point of view, however. You're against all these things, and think the Constitution, as some sort of personified magic walking/talking paper, can strike all the things you don't like down. That doesn't happen, though, as the Constitution is only a piece of paper document that your government and the judiciary are held to and use to justify whatever decisions that end up being made. If you want a more restrictive constitution, then you want to get rid of the current one because it simply won't do it for you, as it's not built in that sort of ideology, no matter how many times people say the Founding Fathers are strict libertarians.

But, really, if you want to restrict the state that much, I fail to see the purpose of having one at all.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 7:10:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 7:05:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/29/2010 6:55:32 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

This is a biased point of view, however. You're against all these things, and think the Constitution, as some sort of personified magic walking/talking paper, can strike all the things you don't like down. That doesn't happen, though, as the Constitution is only a piece of paper document that your government and the judiciary are held to and use to justify whatever decisions that end up being made. If you want a more restrictive constitution, then you want to get rid of the current one because it simply won't do it for you, as it's not built in that sort of ideology, no matter how many times people say the Founding Fathers are strict libertarians.

He's saying that all these things are beyond the federal government. The constitution sez they are the state's responsibility, regardless of whether they are libertarian enough for LF.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 7:13:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 7:05:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/29/2010 6:55:32 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The Constitution was used to overturn Prop 8, yes, but it also allowed the Defense of Marriage Act. So I wouldn't say that protecting the rights of gays is one of the Constitution's strong points.

The Constitution is essentially neutral on most subjects, aye. It's not the Constitution that cares about these issues and will fall for them either way, it's the folks who are pushing their ideology through legal channels. You have to remember that a constitution cannot provide for every single specific issue, it can only generalize and give direction. It's up to the courts, the politicians, and the people to fill in the gaps.
The constitution can provide for every single issue. It either says that the government can do something, or the government cannot do that thing. If a specific issue isn't mentioned, then it isn't part of what the government is allowed to do.

As for the Constitution preventing much more than it provides, I don't see how you could possibly believe this. How important are the things that the government is forced to not do vs the things that it is allowed to do? The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, the drug war, welfare, stimulus programs, bailouts, the Fed, the regulatory state, corporate welfare, "anti-terrorism" civil liberties violations, and I'm sure other things that I can't think of off of the top of my head vs. occasionally defending the rights of gays and other persecuted minorities, upholding the 2nd amendment when there are clear and extreme violations, and what else? The federal courts don't prevent even close to the amount of things they allow.

This is a biased point of view, however. You're against all these things, and think the Constitution, as some sort of personified magic walking/talking paper, can strike all the things you don't like down. That doesn't happen, though, as the Constitution is only a piece of paper document that your government and the judiciary are held to and use to justify whatever decisions that end up being made. If you want a more restrictive constitution, then you want to get rid of the current one because it simply won't do it for you, as it's not built in that sort of ideology, no matter how many times people say the Founding Fathers are strict libertarians.
It is not a biased point of view to state that the things that the government does are far more significant than the things that it isn't allowed to do. You said that the Constitution prevent more than it provides, I said that you're wrong. It doesn't matter, for that point, whether the things it does are good or bad.

And of course the founding fathers weren't strict libertarians. If they were, we would have just kept the Articles of Confederation. The point is that either the Constitution has a clear meaning that doesn't change, or it has no meaning at all.

But, really, if you want to restrict the state that much, I fail to see the purpose of having one at all.
I agree that we shouldn't have a constitution at all. My entire point is that Constitutions don't actually limit government, since the government can do whatever it wants regardless of what the constitution says.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 7:15:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 7:10:39 PM, Sieben wrote:
He's saying that all these things are beyond the federal government. The constitution sez they are the state's responsibility, regardless of whether they are libertarian enough for LF.

As I pointed out before, if that is the wording of the 10th Amendment, it's simply not specific enough; it says that all the powers delegated to the USFG by the Constitution are valid, and given that if the rest of the Constitution is as ambiguous as it seems, and legal justifications for whatever are done through that ambiguity, it's still technically within the powers of the Constitution, and therefore under the purview of the USFG.

Think like a lawyer: every word including and missing counts.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 7:15:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Or, politicians could use whatever money they have left after their campaigns to run their administrations.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 7:23:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 7:13:44 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The constitution can provide for every single issue. It either says that the government can do something, or the government cannot do that thing. If a specific issue isn't mentioned, then it isn't part of what the government is allowed to do.

Mhm, so the federal government shouldn't have computers because that's not in the Constitution? This is a silly idea and doesn't reflect either the spirit or the letter of the law.

It is not a biased point of view to state that the things that the government does are far more significant than the things that it isn't allowed to do. You said that the Constitution prevent more than it provides, I said that you're wrong. It doesn't matter, for that point, whether the things it does are good or bad.

If you want to help me search for a record of all judicial cases in which the Constitution has prevented state action or not, I'd be more than glad for the assistance.

Either way, I never said if it mattered if it was good or bad, just that a constitution presents a framework for action or, as it be, inaction on the part of the state. It doesn't list specifics and it isn't black and white. It's not objective except what you can get through a legal sense.

And see, I can tell right now that you would not make a very good lawyer. You don't understand that law is objective only insofar as it's divine or natural. Human laws and legal codes change almost on a daily basis thanks to the differing interests of all those actors. A constitution is a way to provide a framework for discussing and deciding upon which laws are just and which are not, and how to balance the competing interests of the state versus the people.

And of course the founding fathers weren't strict libertarians. If they were, we would have just kept the Articles of Confederation. The point is that either the Constitution has a clear meaning that doesn't change, or it has no meaning at all.

This black and white attitude of yours now showing is rather irritating and ruining what was quite an interesting discussion.

I agree that we shouldn't have a constitution at all.

I meant the state.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 7:39:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 7:15:17 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/29/2010 7:10:39 PM, Sieben wrote:
He's saying that all these things are beyond the federal government. The constitution sez they are the state's responsibility, regardless of whether they are libertarian enough for LF.

As I pointed out before, if that is the wording of the 10th Amendment, it's simply not specific enough; it says that all the powers delegated to the USFG by the Constitution are valid, and given that if the rest of the Constitution is as ambiguous as it seems, and legal justifications for whatever are done through that ambiguity, it's still technically within the powers of the Constitution, and therefore under the purview of the USFG.

Think like a lawyer: every word including and missing counts.

This would seem to support LF's assertion that the constitution doesn't really limit the governments power. I mean, the government itself is the guardian and interpreter of the document... When you're judge in your own case you always rule in your own favor unless doing so would cause the masses to rise up.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...