[jackbob]

Now that's funny. An invitation to critique and if I can't, "find some one else to pester." Well if I couldn't, I'd be off pestering someone else. Sorry, I can, but I won't. And I'm still here, not to critique, but to disagree. .

"We the People" have the valid Constitutional power to legislate on such matters.

If such matters are to regulate commerce, license enterprises engaged in trade between states, or to prescribe the form, size, quality, measure, labeling, scheduling of such trade; and to impose civil penalties for violation of such regulations, such as fines or loss of licenses, then my answer is dependent on what is meant by "valid."

If "valid" implies a Constitutional power to do such by "We the People," then I agree. If "valid" implies a moral right, I disagree. The libertarian position has been for at least the past 50 years, that no government should have such a moral right.

If you advocate that government does have such a moral right, then I'm right, you are not a libertarian.

[P_A_I]

Licensing is indeed a bad idea, in general, as it can, [and has] lead to restraints on a mans ability to trade, and actual "deprivation of life or liberty", as the excerpt says.

-- But -- My point all along has been to emphasize that rational American libertarians agree with the principles of our Constitution, and that ALL laws made in strict accordance with those principles are valid.

-- It is not necessary to approve of such laws, but there can be no question that "We the People" have the valid Constitutional power to legislate on such matters.

If you live in America & refuse to support the principles of our Constitution, then you cannot truly call yourself an rational libertarian, imho.
Get it?
102

If such matters are to regulate commerce, license enterprises engaged in trade between states, or to prescribe the form, size, quality, measure, labeling, scheduling of such trade; and to impose civil penalties for violation of such regulations, such as fines or loss of licenses, then my answer is dependent on what is meant by "valid."

Most of us accept the standard English definition.

If "valid" implies a Constitutional power to do such by "We the People," then I agree.
If "valid" implies a moral right, I disagree.

Nothing in our Constitution gives government 'moral rights' powers.

The libertarian position has been for at least the past 50 years, that no government should have such a moral right.

So who's arguing? Rational libertarians should agree, just as I noted at #102.

If you advocate that government does have such a moral right, then I'm right, you are not a libertarian.

As usual, you're wrong, and your silly straw man attempt to bash me has fallen apart. --
-- Whatta pitiful display of pique.