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.
And the Nobel Prize for Economics goes to . . . :rolleyes:
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?
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). 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.
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.
I think you’re right. I’ve never met a libertarian who spoke of such things as markets.
You’re right. Quality doesn’t matter. Filling up those desks with bodies is worth any price.
Amen, brother! After your inspirational post, I’m glad now that my sister’s little house was razed.
Yes, indeed. Crime free from South Central LA to the South Bronx.
Hear! Hear! I’m sick of paying $10 a year for fire protection!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
If the courts interpreted the 9th amendment the way I do, we would already have that feature.
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).
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.
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…
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
