Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html ^

[A.J.Armitage]

Considering that this thread is about what is wrong with Libertarianism, and not Southack, I think that it would be a bit arrogant and insensitive for me to hijack this thread for a discussion of what I think that the general welfare clause means.

If the libertarian interpretation is wrong, there has to be some other interpretation which is right. Since you're beng evasive, I'll go ahead and tell the truth about that phrase.

The phrase "general welfare" indeed has no more meaning than any other isolated phrase. If you say "rocking chair", no one knows if you mean "bring the rocking chair here" or "buy a rocking chair" or "chop the rocking chair up and burn it". You have to read the whole clause to get any clear idea what the meaning is. So, here's the clause:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Now we see that paying the debts and providing for the common defense and general welfare does indeed have a very particular meaning: it's the reason for the power to tax.

And, as is standard, here's that exerpt from Federalist #41:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare.''

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

[A.J.Armitage]

Libertarians think we're still living under the Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution was ratified.

The phrase "general welfare" appeared in the Articles, too.

The Constitution clearly grants gobs and gobs of power to the FEDERAL government and NOT the states. It was written entirely to STOP the states from exercising rights, like the right to coin their own money, or cheat other states in business.

I'm fine with that (although that hardly seems to qualify as "gobs and gobs" of power, but maybe my perspective is off because I live in post-New Deal America).

[Southack]

The problem with citing the Federalist Papers is that they aren't "the law". They didn't get voted on and they didn't get ratified by the several states.

But the general welfare clause did.

And the general welfare clause conveys as much power to the federal government as the "common defense" phrase.

The federal government can tax and spend for BOTH our common defense and our general welfare.

But Libertarians erroneously claim that the federal government has no power to tax and spend on the general welfare of Americans.

Sometimes they even cite non-statute references such as the Federalist Papers in some vain attempt at establishing "intent" to that end, too...

[takenoprisoner]

His mission is to muster support for the WOD. Obviously the WOD his obsession and he is convinced that Libertarianism is a threat to the survival of the WOD. Since coming on board last month he has gone about the business of bashing Libertarianism with a vengenance...in pursuit of his cause, the WOD.

[Jhoffa_]

good lord! You guys can really push a metaphor, can't you?

Yes, but in keeping with the "No force, No Fraud" plank of the party, we always allow the metaphor to push us first..

All good Libertarians should do likewise.

[WindMinstrel]

It's been a long week, I guess. It's that, not the humor in that post, that made me spew my Sam Adams™ all over my keyboard. Really. Yeah.

[Tauzero]

You forgot the BARF ALERT

[L,TOWM]

see the adoption of the Gospel by the Empire as part of a prodiential plan for the spread of the Holy Gospel: "in the fullness of time" was operationalized by God as meaning when His chosen people from whom the Christ would spring were incorporated for the first time into a stable multi-ethnic state with a generally used linga franca (Greek).)

Yes, this is called the principle approach in the Home School curricla that my children are (and will continue to be) taught.

My point, and it was not answered by you, is that the church had a lot more conformance to the gospel when Christians met in homes and not grandiose basicallae, no matter what the denomination. "The church" in the book of Acts, was not a place, but a community, a manner of living, and people showing G-d's love. That faded away when the church become "of the World" and not "aliens and strangers" in the World.

[xm177e2]

So what meaning does it have?

Pull out your pocket copy of the Constitution, and flip to Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
....
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

In other words, the Federal Government can "provide for the... general welfare of the United States," which would seem to legitimize Social Security and other welfare state programs.

[higgmeister]

That's right!  Libertarians, totally embrace "The Golden Rule"
just as we all learned it as a child.  The non-initiation of force
is an extension of that.  Is it proper for a man to pass you on
the street, then turn around and deck you with no provocation
what-so-ever simply because he feared that you might do it
to him first. No, of course not!  Libertarians have sworn never
to strike first.  We never said that we would not ever strike at all.
This is the only way a civilized person or society should act.
Otherwise we should all applaud and admire the Japanese for
their surprise first strike attack on Pearl Harbor, or murder
our fellow man on the street for any imagined threat.

The Libertarian Party did a poll of members to see what we
thought of the attack on the World Trade Center.  94.8% said
that we have an obligation to bring terrorists to justice.  Follow
the link to the whole story.

Online survey: LP members support
military strikes against terrorists

                         Despite Libertarians' long-standing aversion to foreign military
                         intervention, 94.8% of survey respondents said they agree the
                         U.S. government "has an obligation to bring the terrorists who
                         are responsible for the September 11 attacks to justice."
                                                                 —
                         "Libertarians believe that individuals and nations do not have
                         the right to initiate force against others, but they tend to agree
                         that the use of force for self-defense -- against rogue nations,
                         criminals, or terrorists -- is appropriate," he said.

                         "These poll results seem to indicate that most Libertarians think
                         the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC qualified
                         as initiation of force, and that a strong military response
                         constitutes legitimate self-defense by our nation."
 

We're not evil imperialists war mongers but we're not peaceniks either.

[higgmeister]

Re: your 169 posted on 2/1/02 3:37 PM Eastern by OrthodoxPresbyterian

 Like Chris Elliot said after Bill Murry's speech in ground Hog Day,
"You Moved Me!"

Thank you!

[Bush2000]

Jeff Flake is pretty close, he wants to deny federal funding to his district's light rail boondoggle...

That's bad. Theft is good, right?

[JakeWyld]

I love it when anti-libertarians try to tell libertarians what they believe.

[JakeWyld]

re: 47

why?

Why do you need this article to be refuted? It will not change your opinion of libertarians one bit.

[A.J.Armitage]

The problem with citing the Federalist Papers is that they aren't "the law". They didn't get voted on and they didn't get ratified by the several states. But the general welfare clause did.

Southack's personal opinions: not law either. The difference is, the guys who wrote the Federalist Papers also had a lot to do with writing the Constitution.

Who knows more about the actual meaning of the Constitution, you, or the people who wrote it?

Let me note, of course, that I'm the one who actually quoted the whole thing, as opposed to a meaningless sentence fragment divorced from its context.

While I'm asking questions, were the Founding Fathers so stupid they wrote out a lengthy enumeration of powers already granted under the heading of the general welfare?

And the general welfare clause conveys as much power to the federal government as the "common defense" phrase.

Thanks for bringing that up.

Later in the same section, we find:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

Separate powers not otherwise granted. So much for that one.

Sometimes they even cite non-statute references such as the Federalist Papers in some vain attempt at establishing "intent" to that end, too...

I haven't seen you cite anything at all. I'd rather take something on the authority of the people who wrote it than on the authority of some random person on the internet who insists that his peculiar view is right. Yeah, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton didn't know what they were talking about. LOL Any other wild eyed claims you'd like to make while you're at it?

And, again, I've quoted the actual provisions of the Constitution.

[JakeWyld]

Guess what Dane! I DISAGREE with the ACLU.

Not that it matters to you.

[A.J.Armitage]

You've proven they can pass laws necessary and proper for the laying and collection of taxes. Point?

[Southack]

And again, you've managed to claim that the general welfare clause has no value.

According to you, everything must be enumerated. The "common defense" clause is meaningless, only a standing army (2 years) and navy are legal. In your view, we can't have an air force, satellites, or national missile defense because the phrase "common defense" doesn't cover them and they aren't enumerated.

That's simply wrong.

Just as the common defense clause authorizes unenumerated items such as national missile defense, so to does the general welfare clause authorize unenumerated government programs.

[Southack]

Also, please refer to post #349.

[higgmeister]

Libertarians think we're still living under the Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution clearly grants gobs and gobs of power to the FEDERAL government and NOT the states. It was
written entirely to STOP the states from exercising rights, like the right to coin their own money, or cheat other
states in business. If libertarians don't like the Constitution, they should say so, but they shouldn't pretend it means
something other than it does.
 

 

Could you go back and read it again please.  I believe
you'll find you've gotten it exactly backwards.  The Founders
realized the Articles of Confederation weren't working
and they needed a centralized government but the U. S.
Constitution was drafted to define and limit the power
of the Federal Government and thus assure that the
States and more importantly the People retained their
unalienable rights endowed by their Creator and declared
in Our Declaration of Independence.  Americans had
already suffered under an oppressive government
by the King and Parliament.  The text itself proves this.
For example in:

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and
provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

They did not say:  Clause 1:  The individual states will not have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

They did not say:  Clause 2:  The individual states will not have the power to borrow Money on the credit of the
United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

They did not say:  Clause 3:  The individual states will not have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

They did not say:  Clause 4:  The individual states will not have the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

They did not say:  Clause 5:  The individual states will not have the power to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

They did not say:  Clause 6:  The individual states will not have the power to provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

They did not say:  Clause 7:  The individual states will not have the power to establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

They did not say:  Clause 8:  The individual states will not have the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

They did not say:  Clause 9:  The individual states will not have the power to constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

They did not say:  Clause 10:  The individual states will not have the power to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

They did not say:  Clause 11:  The individual states will not have the power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

They did not say:  Clause 12:  The individual states will not have the power to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; ...etc.

Or for example in the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I believe the last one is pretty clear.