The power to "regulate" commerce includes the powers to license those enterprises which engage in such exchanges, and to prescribe the form, size, quality, measure, labeling, scheduling, transport, and routing of goods and services, but not prohibition of the content or terms of such exchanges. It includes the power to impose civil penalties for violation of such regulations, such as fines or loss of licenses, but not criminal penalties, such as the deprivation of life or liberty.This sounds constitutional but, by itself, definitely not libertarian.
Libertarians oppose most, if not all, government licensing. It varies with the libertarian - among those who see a need for a minimal government.
And of course to the anarchist libertarians, all government constitutions fail the acid test of libertariansim, since they violate the non-initiation of force rule.
This is one of the best sites on principles I've run across:
Declaration of Constitutional Principles
Address:
http://www.constitution.org/consprin.htm It is very slow reading at first, but when the author gets down to specifics, - good stuff:
"Principles Specific to the Constitution for the United States":
91
_____________________________________
"-- The power to 'regulate' commerce includes the powers to license those enterprises which engage in such exchanges, and to prescribe the form, size, quality, measure, labeling, scheduling, transport, and routing of goods and services, but not prohibition of the content or terms of such exchanges.
It includes the power to impose civil penalties for violation of such regulations, such as fines or loss of licenses, but not criminal penalties, such as the deprivation of life or liberty. -- "
This sounds constitutional but, by itself, definitely not libertarian.
Libertarians oppose most, if not all, government licensing. It varies with the libertarian - among those who see a need for a minimal government.
And of course to the anarchist libertarians, all government constitutions fail the acid test of libertariansim, since they violate the non-initiation of force rule.
100
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?
Libertarians oppose most, if not all, government licensing. It varies with the libertarian - among those who see a need for a minimal government. I do not agree. At least as far as the "licensing" put forth in the selected quote you were replying to. I've not seen any variance among minimal government libertarians on denouncing all such licensing. All of them as far as I've seen are opposed to any form of commercial licensing. A seeming exceptions may be found with regard to handling quantities of items capable of mass human destruction, but that would fall under a unique category.
Over all, all libertarians treat occupational and commercial licensing laws the same as they do zoning laws. That is, that both need to be eliminated.
As far as anarchist libertarians go, though highly influential with in the LP and the movement, they alway cop out on the really hard questions.