Individualism is not "me me me" it is the individual. I have explained this many times before. I do not support gay rights because I am secretly gay, but because some individuals freedoms are under attack.

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

That's true. But, boy, that'd be a massive Amendment to go in and correct to modern capitalization, and provide more specific, clarifying detail on certain things. Add the Air Force in. Clarify, once and for all the 2nd Amendment and end the debates, etc.

Yes, yes, you are generally quite "damned". Could you be more specific about what laws Congress has passed that are illegal? Because if the SCOTUS reviewed it and say it's okay, then it's okay.

Congress hasn't really done a hell of a lot in my lifetime, anyway, so I'm not sharing your concerns that it's out of control.

I was thinking more government in general, not just Congress. Congress couldn't pass innovative, well-crafted legislation if you paid them. Oh, wait.....

I wish you the best of luck with that. Have fun stormin' the castle.

Undoubtedly, it remains an amazing system, I agree wholeheartedly.

But, we never have required amendments for expand functionality. Not every little agency or department has ever needed to be actually amended to the Constitution. Unless you're wanting to turn an elegant, austere document into something requiring shelves and shelves to house.

The Constitution set a great foundation, no question. But, you can't live on a foundation, solid as it is. The other codes, systems, agencies, programs, administrations, etc. are the walls, roofs and internal structures of the modern, functional government.

Government began stretching those bounds immediately. No single document can function as the sole basis for law. I can agree that things are a bit out of hand, especially this Administration, but trying to turn back the clock is absurd fantasy. The response to seeing mountainous SUVs on the road isn't to make everyone go back to Model Ts.

Again, I don't entirely agree that those limits would be adequate for this day and age. I am far more of a nationalist than a state's right guy. States are merely conveniently tiered administrative divisions, not independent nation-states unto themselves. The Articles of Confederation really didn't work.

I guarantee you know far more about it than I do. I'm not as OCD in regards to this stuff. But, I wish you luck in getting the toothpaste back into the tube.

Libertarianism seems to do a lot of howling at the moon.

__________________
The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all. -- G. K. Chesterton

Are you sure he wasn't talking about revolution?

It does not address emails and phones. It addresses 'the people' 'being secure' in 'letters' & 'effects' against unreasonabl search and seizure. It is called the fourth amendment.

"Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson

They are null, void and without force

It has authority to create agencies in as much as the agency conducts matters in which congress is authorized to engage. A 'department of defense' would be constitutional. An agency for international trade would be constitutional. A federal arts department would not be constitutional.

I do not. I simply espouse that the government obey the law, or alter the constituion in a legal fashion.

Why? In other words, the constitution is null and void?

If you allow the government to violate the law, you cannot bitch when they violate YOUR rights. There is a mechanism to alter the constitution. Any legislation outside the scope of current authority is null and void.

We have flexibility in the amendment process. Similar to my debates with my sister (a dailykos democrat) I am not opposed in principal to requiring citizens to have a pension (albeit no in the current form of SS). I am however opposed to government taking my money when they currently have no authority to do so. Obtain authority legally, or cease and desist in illegal activities.

You may be correct. This is why I left the 'two party system' when it is nothing but a usurpation of power. It also failes to adequately represent the constituents. Our congress is the best government that money can buy.

You may take note in another thread where I told Michael that you cannot have a truly 'free market' without the absence of fraud. Government failes to protect the citizens against fraud and their only response is regulating the market. Instead of throwing the fraudulent actors under the prison, and obtain reparations, they punish the law abiding participants. Those who are not abiding by the law, will not do so anyway no matter how many 'regulations' the legislature enacts.

Interesting and I believe that I agree.

One of my favorite quotes:

It is defined as unreasonably burdensome or severe (Websters).

Their (the fed.gov) authority is enumerated under Article I Section 8. Individual states have individual authorities which 'the people' have provided to them respectively.

I consider 'signing statements' to be sedition. If I were in congress, I would push for impeachment on these grounds.

Agreed.

I have discussed my 'plan' with my sister (the dailykos one) and she is not in opposition and considered it to be an improvement. Then she has another glass of wine and all hell breaks loose.

__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat

But that's the typical context for these sort of arguments, aren't they?

Reading lots of these posts, it boils down to:

"Why do we need speed limits? I drive perfectly well! If others don't, that's their choice."
"Speed limits are in place to secure the safety of everybody, and to regulate the flows of traffic..."
"But it's oppressing me! Who the hell are you to tell me I can't drive any way I want to?"

On and on. From what I can tell, those that argue that are primarily thinking in terms of laws that prevent ME from doing X, rather than the larger context of what might be best for society as a whole.

Can you are least see how these arguments leave me with the impression that it's more about personal anarchy, than what's best for society? Maybe it's more the methods of debate, but it's very, very ME-centric.

Perhaps more fundamentally, I do not believe every "freedom" is sacred. Being able to set aside personal freedoms to gain the cooperation of others is the very basis of civilization itself.

I just think that libertarians take things to an unacceptable, illogical, unworkable extreme, and champion freedom at the possible expense of common sense. That's all.

__________________
The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all. -- G. K. Chesterton

That is a fallacious argument. Speed limits are a state / county / local issue depending on 'where' the road is. If you have ever attended a city council or county commissioners court proceeding, you would understand this. I have no issues with 'speed limits' other than those imposed on a federal basis. I do have issues with seat belt laws.

Give a better example. Speed limits arent something that we (the LP) generally do not attack. Unless of course it is federally imposed.

That may be your impression, but it is incorrect. Again, it is about enumerated 'authority.'

Libertarians believe in 'natural' rights and that the purpose of government is to protect said rights. Some things can be done collectively (such as military/police and fire). However, a government agent cannot have any more 'authority' than you have in an inalianable right. IF the government derives its authorty to act this way or that from 'the people,' then 'the people' must have 'the right' to act in this way or that. I don't have 'the right' to take without permission, and therefore neither can the government have 'authority' to do the same.

Give an example.

__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat

I can't find the quote I am thinking of, and it may not have been Jefferson, but one of them talked about fully expecting the Constitution to be outdated and for people not to be held to the "barbarous"? level ot their forebears....

Ah, here it is...

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."


That second part spoke to me. About not wearing the same coat, and for us to progress through time and not be held back by our ancestors.

I guess that's my main response to regressive suggestions. I hold the Constitution in reverence, but not abject worship as the best possible document of all time.

__________________
The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all. -- G. K. Chesterton

Well that is not really individualism that is just selfishness, unless they are just mis-stating. While I do sometimes say things like that, using I instead of others it is just grammar errors.

They put the individual above society. That is the very definition of individualism. Them being an individual puts them above society as is every other individual. It is most likely a grammatical slip-up most of the time or typing laziness as "me" is much shorter than "any individual". Individualism though is not about any "me" it is about the individual.

I do not think so, but that is just a general statement about libertarians. I think most other systems ignore common sense and are "me me me", because libertarianism is far from it.
Also libertarianism is mostly individualist, not all individualists are libertarian. The words are not the same. Which one are you talking about?

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

Well he is not suggesting that the government be allowed to violate the law at will. Additionally, you need to look at the context of the letter in which he is writing.

In his discussion, he advocates amending the constitution while remiaining inflexible in the execution thereof...

The question was posed to him whether or not he would support another constitutional convention. The quote is from his response.

Here is the entire letter and a good read:

From Revolution to Reconstruction: Presidents: Thomas Jefferson: Letters: REFORM OF THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION

Note...a constitutional convention would be another way to change the constitution LEGALLY as opposed to the current paradigm of tyranny.

__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat

Well, I chose that one to be just an example. But, okay, let's use seat belt or helmet laws as a better example. I just don't see it as an epic freedom/oppression issue. Just got done with a big old smoking ordinance thread, another issue I see as far less reason for panic than others do.

I reserve my wrath for the big stuff, like this wiretapping crap. Or the Patriot Act/Guantanamo/War on Terror that's pretty much killed the concept of habeas corpus, and has really expanded the President's role to near monarch levels. You bet I believe in checks and balances.

The system's definitely broken. We just differ on the remedy.

That's the rub. I see no rights as "inalienable". No different than any other nation in history, we operate at the sufferance of whichever rights are granted and protected by our government, and rights do not exist except as WE define them. Wisely, there are a lot of protections against losing most of our rights, but I agree that that's eroding.

Government always has assumed authority. Asking the people's permission is nice, but good luck with holding them to that.

__________________
The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all. -- G. K. Chesterton

Cetainly possible.

Must be more rabid individualists, then. Honestly, I see little difference at least in terms of the type of debate going on in Libertarianism's name.

__________________
The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all. -- G. K. Chesterton