# What Liberatian Amendment would you like to see in the Constitution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 24, 2002, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647 "2002-07-24T23:06:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![stofsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dfb087/32.png) [@stofsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stofsky)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/21 "2002-07-25T17:38:45Z")
Dude. Amendment whatever: big fat spliffs and hash brownies are cool. Doritos for everyone. Libertarianism is bullshit, folks. It does not take into account that we live in a _community_ and a _society_, and in order to do so we have to take on a social contract. In other words, we have to pay taxes so that _all_ of our children are educated (to what extent or with what quality is debatable), so that we _all_ have roads to drive upon, police to protect us from crime, fire departments to try to save our houses, etc., etc. So, those of you who want to do away with property taxes, income taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes, how would you pay for the community services you enjoy, use, might have to use, yadda yadda yadda? Gonna buy your own police department? Gonna buy your own fire department? Again, yadda yadda yadda. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/22 "2002-07-25T18:07:41Z")
And the Nobel Prize for Economics goes to . . . :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Libertarianism is bullshit, folks. It does not take into account that we live in a community and a society . . . It doesn’t? Then how do you account for the fact that so much of libertarian discourse concerns itself with the operation of markets? Do you suppose they are envisioning one-person markets? Of course not. For heaven’s sake, why is the largest text on libertarian ethics and economics called _Human Action_? You’re simply creating a straw man here, which is of course much easier to fight than a real argument is. Tell me, stofsky, **if** you, I, and 5,000 other people _decided_ to pool a portion of our resources to buy a fire department, how is the **net effect** any different from the government withholding money from my check to buy one on our behalf? Ignore away the ethical arguments for a moment – how is the net effect different? I’ve never seen a libertarian argue that we don’t need any of those things. Can you please show me one who has, or do you prefer to wrestle with ol’ Scarecrow there? What I have seen them argue is that **the way we provide them** is not _necessarily_ the most ethical way, but is instead the most expedient. Why would anyone – including you, stofsky – assume there is only one way to do certain things? ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/23 "2002-07-25T18:13:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fang \* > **Don’t go overboard on the rhetoric. Police are one of the few legitimate government services. They protect your property, as government is supposed to do. The more you have, the more resources it takes to protect, so a property tax is legitmate. Would you rather pay the police with income tax (yes, I’m aware you do have to pay income tax, but if you think that’s wrong, oppose it, not the property tax which is a separate issue)?** Looks like you are a little unclear on the job of the police. Their job is to enforce laws, not to protect property or people ([cite](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/489/189.html)). And government is not there for protecting your property. It is there to keep order and make laws. The responsibility for protecting yourself and your property falls on nobody but yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/24 "2002-07-25T18:14:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Libertarianism is bullshit, folks. Bravo! I have never heard a more compelling argument. I am forced to renounce the notion that peaceful honest people ought to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. > [@](#): > > It does not take into account that we live in a community and a society, and in order to do so we have to take on a social contract. I think you’re right. I’ve never met a libertarian who spoke of such things as markets. > [@](#): > > In other words, we have to pay taxes so that all of our children are educated (to what extent or with what quality is debatable) You’re right. Quality doesn’t matter. Filling up those desks with bodies is worth any price. > [@](#): > > so that we all have roads to drive upon Amen, brother! After your inspirational post, I’m glad now that my sister’s little house was razed. > [@](#): > > police to protect us from crime Yes, indeed. Crime free from South Central LA to the South Bronx. > [@](#): > > fire departments to try to save our houses Hear! Hear! I’m sick of paying $10 a year for fire protection! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/25 "2002-07-25T18:41:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Why would anyone – including you, stofsky – assume there is only one way to do certain things? Thanks, Phil. I always love the opportunity to quote Mises. > [@](#): > > The truth is that the alternative is not between a dead mechanism or a rigid automatism on one hand and conscious planning on the other hand. The alternative is not plan or no plan. The question is whose planning? Should each member of society plan for himself, or should a benevolent government alone plan for them all? The issue is not automatism versus conscious action; it is autonomous action of each individual versus the exclusive action of the government. It is freedom versus government omnipotence. > > Laissez faire does not mean: Let soulless mechanical forces operate. It means: Let each individual choose how he wants to cooperate in the social division of labor; let the consumers determine what the entrepreneurs should produce. Planning means: Let the government alone choose and enforce its rulings by the apparatus of coercion and compulsion. > > […] > > All this passionate praise of the supereminence of government action is but a poor disguise for the individual interventionist’s self-deification. The great god State is a great god only because it is expected to do exclusively what the individual advocate of interventionism wants to see achieved. Only that plan is genuine which the individual planner fully approves. All other plans are simply counterfeit. In saying “plan” what the author of a book on the benefits of planning has in mind is, of course, his own plan alone. — Ludwig von Mises, _Human Action_, Chapter XXVII. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE MARKET, Section 5. The Meaning of Laissez Faire, pages 732-733. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/26 "2002-07-25T23:40:14Z")
I’m going out on a limb: The first, last, and only amendment needed in a truly libertarian society should have should be KYFHO: KEEP YOUR F\*\*\*ING HANDS OFF. For more info, read The LaNague Chronicles, by Francis Paul Wilson, goes by F. Paul Wilson. Wouldn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/27 "2002-07-25T23:40:45Z")
Discontinue the popular election of Senators. Senators should be appointed by the States so that they look out for the direct interests of their particular state. The people get their voice from the House of Representatives. We have broken an important part of the process by replacing the Senate with a version that looks and acts like a second HoR. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/28 "2002-07-26T01:46:15Z")
First, I’d say that the amendments in the OP are far too broad. Anything that vaguely written is certain to have unintended consequences. Some of the others mentioned here are similar. I would favor an amendment or series of amendments specifically protecting some of the most common areas in which the government attempts to restrict individual liberties such as drugs, gambling, sex work, etc. Sort of a “Right to Vice” amendment. I’d also favor an amendment prohibiting the government from establishing any government monopolies on commercial activity. The governemnt should be able to operate commercial activites like mail delivery, toll highways, and lotteries, but they shouldn’t be able to eliminate private competition. I’d argue that several of Tristan’s proposed amendments would actually restrict individual liberties. The 1st would prevent people from donating to candidates they support; the 4th and 6th would limit their ability to vote for candidates they favor. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/29 "2002-07-26T02:44:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*But what if Giant Sentient Squids should arise from the ocean floor to reclaim their bras? \*\* You keep saying that, but did you know that it’s been done? (Well, except the bit about the bras, more’s the pity) [by the VP Candidate of the Libertarian Party in the '80s, no less](http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200001/0671578596.htm) Really. Giant, extra-dimensional Sentient Space Squids. Libertarian ones. Fenris ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/30 "2002-07-26T06:14:22Z")
**ScoobyTX** is dead on about the “commerce clause.” Justice Scalia came to talk here at the University of Missouri law school this fall specifically addressing this issue. Did you know that the federal government passed a law pertaining to domestic violence on the basis of the commerce clause? Alot of laws that people really like were passed through the “commerce clause”, such as this domestic violence law or the federal anti-discrimination laws (apparently businesses discriminating against black people, such as restaurants in the south during the 1960’s, imported alot of their products from across state boundaries and thus it was ok for the fed gov’t to pass a law outlawing such discrimination from the “commerce clause”.) Whether or not you like these laws, they are a matter for you to take up with your state government, not the federal government. The nation is a collection of sovereign states, not simply “California uber Alles” despite their advantage in pure numbers (thanks Dead Kennedys for the phrase.) As a member of the Libertarian Party and the law school division of the Federalist Society, I am quite aware that the abuses committed at the federal level against the states under the so-called justification of the “commerce clause” are a great offense to the states. Excellent point made, **ScoobyTX**. ---
**Author:** ![Squish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Squish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squish)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/31 "2002-07-26T06:58:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RexDart \* > **The nation is a collection of sovereign states, \** Not since the defeat of the Confederacy ended the Civil War. States are no longer sovereign, not autonomous; rather they are merely ‘departments’ of a byzantine bureaucracy. ---
**Author:** ![Procacious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Procacious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procacious)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/32 "2002-07-26T07:45:37Z")
> [@](#): > > As for the OP, I’d like to see an overhaul of the way the constitution works; instead of enumerating the restrictions on the government, it should list the various “compelling government interests” and require that every law be based on one (or more) of them. Laws should be presumed unconstitutional until proven otherwise, not vice versa. If the courts interpreted the 9th amendment the way I do, we would already have that feature. > [@](#): > > 1. The SCOUS shall not deem illegal any law passed by public vote, as it is the will of the People, and hence inviolate. I have a problem with this one. We have a Republic rather than a Democracy because the framers of the Constitution did not trust the people to make wise decisions. This change to the Constitution would make legal any persecution that could get a majority vote. Besides, we already have a way to do what you suggest. The states can ratify a Constitutional amendment if they feel that there is a particular group in need of persecution and the Constitution is getting in their way. (You can probably tell by the way I worded that that I do not support any Constitutional amendment that takes away rights). > [@](#): > > First, I’d say that the amendments in the OP are far too broad. Anything that vaguely written is certain to have unintended consequences. Some of the others mentioned here are similar. I think many of us have chosen broad amendments because we cannot cram everything into a specific one. The broadness keeps the government out of many, many things. When in a situation where it is hard to decide whether the government should be involved or not, the answer is “not”. These vague amendments work toward that end by keeping the government out of almost everything. If I could have only one amendment, it would be one that everyone else interprets the way that I interpret the 9th amendment. That all rights are retained by the people unless their is an extremely compelling reason otherwise (which is similar to the OP’s #1). If the courts started to interpret the 9th amendment this way, then the amendment I would choose would be one to repeal the 16th amendment (income tax). Constitutional amendments that remove rights that the Constitution was intended to protect are totally unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/33 "2002-07-26T09:44:20Z")
Fenris 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/34 "2002-07-26T09:52:23Z")
What, no one’s suggested a little clarification that a “right of the people” means right _of the people_ and not “the States” or “the Government” or whatever… ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/35 "2002-07-26T10:57:37Z")
Ok, folks, I give. You’re right. Giving broad powers into the hands of the peeple, while a good idea, is probably not only a bad idea, but quite possibly criminally negligent. While discussing history with some folks earlier today, several of them stated, categorically, that the USSR was fighting against us in WWII. And WWI. _sigh_ The idea behind this one, however, was that there needs to be a limit to the powers of the government (primarily in the form of the SCOUS) to override the voted in will of the people. Especially on hot-button political issues (abortion, Medicinal Marijuana, death penalty). As for making SC justices an termed position… well, I like the idea of new blood coming around regularly, and I think that the same folks sitting and making the rules (so to speak) for 10-20 years is a bad idea. Look how fast the world has been changing. Mayhaps a fresh outlook on things periodically would alleviate the need for my **#5**. **note- posts on 7/26 being made on 32 hours with no sleep** ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/36 "2002-07-26T14:46:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RexDart \* > \*\ ***ScoobyTX** is dead on about the “commerce clause.” Justice Scalia came to talk here at the University of Missouri law school this fall specifically addressing this issue. Did you know that the federal government passed a law pertaining to domestic violence on the basis of the commerce clause? And did you know that that law was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, precisely because the Commerce Clause should not be stretched that far? No comment on the anti-discrimination laws – we had a recent thread beating that puppy to death. Sua ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/37 "2002-07-26T23:47:58Z")
Libertarian > [@](#): > > Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from coercion. Guaranteed by whom? Fang > [@](#): > > Don’t go overboard on the rhetoric. It’s your rhetoric, not mine. > [@](#): > > Um, rent is a fee for use of somebody else’s property. Not a service, at least not in the sense I was using. It is a service as far as I’m concerned. > [@](#): > > While discussing history with some folks earlier today, several of them stated, categorically, that the USSR was fighting against us in WWII. Well, that’s kinda true. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2002, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/38 "2002-07-27T00:51:18Z")
How about “Congress will require a 2/3rds [or maybe 3/4ths] vote to pass any bill into law”? I think that’s pretty libertarian. The reason we’re stuck with such huge government now is that Congress is a law making factory who feels compelled to constantly legislate, and a law can pass even if 49.99% of Congress objects to it. Making a 2/3rds or 3/4ths requirement to pass any bill would result in a) Less laws, and b) the laws that were passed would be the ones that were really important, and held a general consensus. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2002, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/39 "2002-07-27T01:14:23Z")
Doesn’t the idea of term limits for Congressmen or the President somewhat fly into the face of Libertarianism? I’ve often preferred the British system for electing members of Parliament. I should be able to vote for anyone I want. No term limits. No residency restrictions. No age requirements. Nothing. If I can get enough people in Nowhere to vote for Bill Gates for Congress, we should be able to elect him. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2002, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647/40 "2002-07-27T01:38:26Z")
Another Amendment I would like to see would be one that required the renewel of EVERY law on the books every so often. If there was broad consensus on a specific law(murder), then maybe they wouldn’t have to vote on it for another 10 years, but if it was a close vote(vouchers), then maybe it would only last 3 years. At least it would keep them busy doing something besides adding more laws on top of old laws. It owuld also make sure that our legal system represented current views. Plus, think of the entertainment value. I would love to see southern state legislatures debating whether or not to renew the sodomy laws.🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-liberatian-amendment-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-constitution/120647.md?page=3)