reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Ok, I'll forgo the usual sarcastic response to your opening sarcastic response since you actually seem to be starting to get what I am saying. Why
not be nice?
Replacing government with a marketing system is a communist ideal, and reading the Libertarian view, I see that as their goal as they state numerous
The U.S. Constitution was written by people who believed that it is the role of government to protect the rights of the individual.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.
While libertarians specifically state, as I have already quoted.
They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with
the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
The important, and very critical statement in this quote from the Libertarian website is this.
the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
This is clearly in opposition to the preamble of the U.S. Constitution which states that it is the role of government to
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
These critical points are clearly in opposition to each other. Libertarians claim that only free markets are compatible with the protection of
individual rights, our liberty, while the framers of the U.S. constitution consider it to be the role of government to guard our liberty.
You can read every word a hundred times, but if you fail to identifying the critical points, then you fail to understand what you are reading.
You complain about my quoting and linking techniques, yet you consistently fail to put links and quotes together. You either post a link or a quote,
and for some reason fail to consistently put both together as I continuously strive to do.
You have all these quotes from the founders of the U.S. constitution, without any links so that readers and look at the context in which they were
That being said, I am familiar with these quotes, and what is clear to anyone who understands what they are reading is that none of the statements in
these quotes are saying that government should not regulate markets.
Yes, most of founders of the U.S. Constitution, of which Jefferson was not one, were very cautious of the exercise of government power in all aspects
of life, not just in the markets. They were much more concerned about liberty, freedom, than they were about property rights.
All of your quotes caution about giving government too much power over regulating markets, and the possible consequences, but all of them also
recognize that markets must be regulated. None of them state that markets should not be regulated.
If you provide the links to these quotes you have posted, this becomes more obvious. If you follow the link above to the U.S. Constitution you will
clearly see it stated that the powers of Congress include regulating commerce.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clearly the framers of the U.S. constitution recognized the need for government in this role. While libertarians claim this is not the case.
2.0 Economic Liberty
All efforts by government ..... to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
This critical point that Libertarians claim is clearly in opposition to the U.S. constitution.
The section on the Libertarian position on liberty is kind of outside of our debate, but I thought I would bring up this inconsistency in section
The Libertarian position on crime stated in 1.0 and 1.5 do not mesh. If government can not initiate force then how are they going to apprehend
criminals and enforce laws. In addition, there is no adequate form of restitution in cases of murder and rape, or even most violent acts. Locking up
the perp and throwing away the key, or putting them to death is sometimes the only answer.
I though most libertarians were for the death penalty. I think that would be considered as an initiation of force.
My statement regarding claims made in 2.2 is right on the money. The Libertarian claim that free markets will protect the environment is pure horse
manure, and my response clearly explains why.
Your inability to come up with a logical argument to refute my claims on the matter indicates that you simply do not understand the reality, or you
have no logical argument. Your response, to quote and declare I am wrong without any reason offered, is meaningless.
I am glad that we can agree on something. Not only am I not a fan of needless taxation, I am also not a fan of needless regulation, I just recognize
This statement however is not reasonable, nor thoroughly thought out.
... More simply said, what government does for you, it should do for all, ...
Government covers a vast array of aspects of peoples lives, and many things that government is supposed to do, is not utilized by everyone. Take
getting a passport for instance. Do you recognize the legitimate need for a passport? Well, plenty of people never plan on leaving the U.S. so they
have no need for a passport. Under this concept that "what government does for you, it should do for all" it would be a massive waste of resources
for all to have passport when it is not needed. Different activities lead to different areas of interaction with government. It is only reasonable
that those activities that require a great deal of government support, such as the importation of goods, as I explained in my example, should require
that those engaging in those actions pay in propensity to their usage. I don't expect others to pay for my passport, why should I pay for the
government activities to protect the public from the complexities of the importation of goods.
I am not sure what your quote on regulation about positive and negative commercial activity is referring to. Maybe you can provide a link to further
explain this. Attacking health insurance regulation is a whole different topic, and hardly speaks of support of regulation of commerce.
Do you think the same logic should apply to auto insurance? I don't agree with the way the insurance industry operates at all, but I am forced to
buy into this system at many junctures. What gives the states any more right to violate our liberty through such mandates?
Yes, the commerce clause does not allow the government to do what ever it desires. This is why we have a judicial branch.
The commerce clause does a lot more than protect against states creating trade barriers between states as you imply. A gallon in one state should
equal a gallon in another state, legal contracts from one state should be legal in another, but they shouldn't allow one state to impose their law on
another. Pollution does not recognize borders, so it is a federal regulation issue.
Nothing you have posted here shows any recognition of the federal governments power to regulate commerce, but the most narrow and unrealistic. When
the federal government oversteps its authority, the Judicial branch is supposed to step in, and this is the best system in place on the planet right
now. Why would we replace this with the idealism of the free market?
Corporate entities are indeed publicly traded, but most corporations are controlled by a small group of private interests working together.
It seems we agree a great deal on the role of corporations, and in this arena our discussion is bearing fruit. We just disagree with how to deal with
I don't believe in a free market, or more to the point, I don't believe any natural functions of society can prevent crime. I think the point of
government is to create a tool that enables us to protect our liberties by establishing laws that punish criminal behavior. This being said, I also
recognize that government can turn against the people who created it, as I feel is the case over the last couple of decades.
We need to do something about the stranglehold corporations have over congress through lobbyists, and the enormous influence of campaign
Yes, we need to find away to hold the people hiding behind the corporate mask responsible for their crimes.
Currently our state governments are forcing people to gain the approval of private organizations, or state sponsored organizations which have been
established as the gate keepers to what types of enterprise one can engage in. Most state licensing requirements require some sort of degree from a
university. There are very little standards as to what requirements a university may impose for the completion of a degree. However, these
universities are fully enabled to charge ever larger amounts of money for tuition in order to be granted access to a great deal of economic activity.
There should be a standardized testing system that enables those who have learned on their own to prove their qualifications, which all who apply
should be required to pass, even university grads.
Looks like I also need to use another post to finish my reply.
[edit on 20-5-2010 by poet1b]
[edit on 20-5-2010 by poet1b]