Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?

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

[A.J.Armitage]

As we all now know, the anti-federalists against this phrases insertion were right all along, and Madison was dead wrong.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The real problem is the twisting of the interstate commerce clause.

[is lurking enough?]

This pieces is a bunch of abstract mumbo jumo. You could change half the words and the meaning would remain the same - whatever

[is lurking enough?]

This pieces is a bunch of abstract mumbo jumo. You could change half the words and the meaning would remain the same - whatever

[A.J.Armitage]

As can be seen from what I posted the founders failed to expound and limit it's meaning.

Bullshit. If you'll read what I posted, specifically the quote from Federalist #41, they most certainly did expound and limit the meaning.

Then you post some dreck which starts, right at the beginning, "Article I, section 8 of the Constitution confers upon Congress certain enumerated powers and a potentially more sweeping authority to provide for the general welfare, a goal also set forth in the Preamble." Anyone who thinks there are powers granted by the preamble has problems reading; those are the purposes of the Constitution, not the powers of Congress.

[Southack]

"If you think there's a "general welfare power", you logically have to agree with xm177e2 in his claim that Congress can do anything it claims is in the general welfare. ... If it's not granted by that clause, it's not granted at all. "General welfare" grants everything, or nothing."

Like most Libertarians, you've definitely contracted the all-or-nothing disease. By your logic the "general welfare" clause either has no meaning and can be disregarded as if it was never written into our Constitution, or else it has unlimited meaning and invalidates the rest of the Constitution.

I refer you to post #377, which dissects the general welfare clause reasonably well for having such a limited amount of space to do so with in the first place.

You and I clearly disagree on this point. This is one of the points that I have cited as being wrong with Libertarians, in that libs consistently misinterpret the Constitution. You would have us either throw out the phrase "general welfare" or throw out the rest of the Constitution.

Neither of your extreme bi-polar claims are accurate, however. The truth is somewhere in the middle (again, see post #377). The general welfare clause does have meaning and does convey to our government some power, but that power is NOT unlimited. In alcohol, slavery, gambling, and secession are incontravertible examples of LIMITS and boundaries on the general welfare clause.

In contrast, your views would either throw out the phrase "general welfare" as if it had never been written, or else throw out the rest of the Constitution as if it was all superfluous.

You can't do either, legally. Every word has to count in the Constitution. You can't just run around and toss out unpleasant phrases simply because they are inconvenient to your political philosophy. In fact, you can't toss them out for any reason unless you follow the Constitutional Amendment process.

[Southack]

Nice post!

[spunkets]

"Bullshit. If you'll read what I posted, specifically the quote from Federalist #41, they most certainly did expound and limit the meaning."

I posted the book review in #377 as a summary of the history of claims of what the clause means. I happen to agree with you, that it was intended as a justification for taxes raised for the enumerated powers. I also happen to agree with takenoprisoner, that the Anti-Federalists were correct in their claim that it could and would be taken as a grant of unlimited unenumerated power. The review I posted gives,

"Any doubt remaining after Butler as to the scope of the General Welfare Clause was dispelled a year later in Helvering. There the Court defended the constitutionality of the 1935 Social Security Act, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. Justice Benjamin Cardozo summed up what has become controlling doctrine ever since: "Nor is the concept of the general welfare static.... What is critical or urgent changes with the times." "

They(Madison) should have it explicit in the Constitution itself, not just in the Federalist papers. As the review notes, Madison's private papers contain other meanings.

" But privately, Madison believed that the General Welfare Clause delegates to the Congress plenary legislative power; that the enumeration of specific powers served simply to allocate and assign governmental functions, establish certain procedural limitations, and illustrate some of the powers deemed to be necessary and proper. This alleged difference between Madison’s public and private persona is at the root of the so-called Madisonian contradiction."

I don't have the private papers, but it is because of this Madisonian contradiction and lack of explicit meaning, that I made the statement, "As can be seen from what I posted the founders failed to expound and limit it's meaning." You posted in #341 what is truly the meaning of the clause. Any private comms Madison made are overruled by the public annoucements, because it's the public that's being addressed and if contrary meaning is given in private, it can only be taken as fraud and tossed out on that basis.

Southack, you haven't posted anything, but etherial comment and slander. You've also failed to post anything of substantial worth, or the legal value of, "who knows what your claims are regarding the welfare clause, you haven't made any." Your claims consist of telling everyone else they are wrong.

[spunkets]

"so to does the general welfare clause authorize unenumerated government programs."

Sorry, I was wrong. It was burried in the mud.

[Southack]

"Southack, you haven't posted anything, but etherial comment and slander."

Please show me the specific post where I slandered someone so that I may apologize.

[spunkets]

#312 is an example.

"Absolutely no meaning (at least to libertarians). According to Libertarians you can just disregard the phrase "general welfare" as if it were never written into the Constitution."

The essence of this claim was made more than a few times. It is a misrepresentation, a falsehood that has no purpose, but to malign.

An apology isn't appropriate. In the discussion, substantiation of your claim that the welfare clause grants unlimited powers would be. It is my guess they are the ones that hold to a living Constitution. I don't believe in that artistic interpretation, but it is still law, however flawed.

[Southack]

You are kidding, right?!

You accuse me of slander and then say that no apology is needed, and provide #312 as an "example"?!

Either I slandered someone or I didn't. I don't see it, and I asked you nicely to show me where I so did.

Now I'm thinking that perhaps I'm not the one who needs to apologize...

[Southack]

"An apology isn't appropriate. In the discussion, substantiation of your claim that the welfare clause grants unlimited powers would be."

You do realize that I've made MULTIPLE posts in which I've specifically named at least FOUR examples of LIMITS on the power conveyed by the general welfare clause to the federal government.

Those examples included alcohol, slavery, gambling, and secession (as well as other states' rights issues).

Unlimited powers, indeed...

[spunkets]

What part of making false accusations against libertarians don't you get? If it's not clear, then it provides insight into why you hold to the claims of the proponents of the living Constitution. That happens to be a topic you introduced into the thread. At minimum AJA, takenoprisoner and myself gave and posted support for our positions. It includes the public explaination of the meaning of the phrase, made at the time of by the founders.

Several libertarians(?) have given you the original meaning, that carries much weight, because it is what was made known to the folks that signed the document into law. It's clearly given in the above posts and AJ's post of Madison's public explaination is given in #341. If you want to promote the living version of the Constitution, then you'll have to post substantiation for that interpretation. That would allow the claims and arguments they made, to be clear and open to examine for falsehoods and logical fallicy.

[spunkets]

"Unlimited powers, indeed...I noticed you gave those examples, but they were just given w/o the reasoning behind them. From your #358

"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."

W/o some kind of reasoning behind the limits you gave, your #358 leaves me to think you hold to unlimited powers.

[Southack]

"What part of making false accusations against libertarians don't you get?"

Rubbish. You've just been busted for wrongly claiming that I slandered someone.

First of all, Libertarians DO claim that the general welfare clause has no meaning and conveys no power to the federal government, so my accusation isn't false.

And second, it wouldn't be slander even if it was false simply because it isn't derogatory. It is a neutral statement of position on an issue.

Libertarians think that our Constitution doesn't allow social spending. They hold that view because they think that the general welfare clause conveys no power to the federal government.

It isn't slander to point that fact out.

And frankly, your craven notion that you need to debate my view of the Constitution is flawed, at best. This is NOT a thread about what is wrong with Southack, such as that might relieve you of the challenges that you face. Instead, this is a thread about what is wrong with Libertarianism.

And one of those things is that Libertarians consisntently claim that the "general welfare" clause of our Constitution has no meaning.

If that is wrong, then summarize WHAT specific power the phrase does convey to the federal government.

[spunkets]

I read your 385. It was posted while I was typing. That's what was a nice clear post.

[spunkets]

I gave my thoughts on the matter in #387. It's quite clear that the welfare clause has meaning, it was publicly claimed to be a justification clause by Madison. Madison publicly rejected the claims that it granted unenumerated powers. That was given by AJA in post #341. I gave my reasoning for that there also.

I acknowledge that in the present state of affairs, the clause is held to grant powers and I posted something regarding that. In that cut, there's mention of what limits the USSC has put on those unenumerated powers growing out of the welfare clause, that it "be welfare spending for the common benefit." It appears from this passage that the present state of affairs would allow unlimited powers.

Sorry, I got your #385 while I was writing. I was annoyed at the lack of substantiation and clarity presented, not Southack. I wouldn't have included the note to you if I had seen that first, I apologize for that.

[Southack]

No problem. Thanks for the clarification.

[A.J.Armitage]

Like most Libertarians, you've definitely contracted the all-or-nothing disease. By your logic the "general welfare" clause either has no meaning and can be disregarded as if it was never written into our Constitution, or else it has unlimited meaning and invalidates the rest of the Constitution.

It hasn't got anything to do with libertarianism; it has to do with simply reading the text. Your position, it seems, is that the text grants a limitless power to do everything in the general welfare, but doesn't really mean it. Some things are outside the federal sphere in spite of the lack of textual support for the exception.

If I'm wrong, then prove it. Assume, for the sake of discussion on this particular point, that you're right about the "general welfare power". Cite the specific text in the Constitution itself preventing Congress from legislating in the general welfare when it comes to alcohol, ect. If there are no such explicit exceptions, then it really is an either-or, not because I'm "bi-polar", but because the wording of the text forces it on us.

You would have us either throw out the phrase "general welfare" or throw out the rest of the Constitution.

It seems you have a short memory, so I'll repeat what I said about interpreting phrases rather than sentences: you can't do it. "General welfare", in isolation, means exactly nothing as far as legal obligation is concerned. You seem to think the mere appearance of the phrase, the disconnected words, implies some obvious legal implication regardless of whether it says, "Congress shall have all power to legislate in the general welfare," or "Congress shall not have the power to do anything in the general welfare." As it happens, the Constitution says neither. You're the one looking at things in black and white here.

The general welfare clause does have meaning and does convey to our government some power, but that power is NOT unlimited. In alcohol, slavery, gambling, and secession are incontravertible examples of LIMITS and boundaries on the general welfare clause.

Where are those limits in the text?

In contrast, your views would either throw out the phrase "general welfare" as if it had never been written, or else throw out the rest of the Constitution as if it was all superfluous.

I've already said exactly what it means. You're trying to take the radical choice above, which is implied by your view of it, and impose it on mine. It doesn't fit. That choice, accepting the "general welfare clause" or accepting the rest of the Constitution, is a result of seeing it as a separate grant of power. If you get past this false view and see it as part of the grant of the power to tax, everything fits together nicely.

The general welfare, left without qualification, encompasses the entire legitimate sphere of government; so unless you can show from the text where certain subject areas are exempted (and I'm not holding my breath) your view, by logical necessity, gives every government power to the federal government, and the fact that such powers do not, in fact, belong to the federal government merely proves you wrong.

[A.J.Armitage]

I also happen to agree with takenoprisoner, that the Anti-Federalists were correct in their claim that it could and would be taken as a grant of unlimited unenumerated power.

Only by amateur government shills. The pros use the commerce clause.

"Any doubt remaining after Butler as to the scope of the General Welfare Clause was dispelled a year later in Helvering. There the Court defended the constitutionality of the 1935 Social Security Act, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. Justice Benjamin Cardozo summed up what has become controlling doctrine ever since: "Nor is the concept of the general welfare static.... What is critical or urgent changes with the times." "

I highly doubt anything from anyone who believes in "preamble powers", but if the ruling actually said that, then it means, by logical necessity, that there is nothing outside the sphere of federal authority. Any later decision upholding enumerated powers (United States vs. Morrison, for example) overturns it.