"We the People" already have representation in the Federal government - it's called the House of Representatives. The States also need to have representation which used to be called the Senate. Our current system short circuits our Republic.
That's right, there is a Republican who opposes this; Ron Paul of Texas. He is actually a libertarian but strictly opposes a national ID. You can see his response 6:33 in this video of the debate as he is running for President: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo
Unfortunately the States have conceded their representation to the Fed. Now that US Senators are no longer representatives of each state legislature, the states have ZERO say in what the Fed does to them. The 17th amendment should be repealed!
No, because individuals are sovereign according to libertarian and 'social contract' philosophy. If we can tell when someone is dead, then we should be able to use the same metrics to determine when someone is alive (heartbeat, brainwaves, etc). Once someone is alive, they are entitled to all human rights, and in the US, these rights are protected by the Constitution.
If a woman aborts a baby that is alive, then she has violated the rights of that individual, specifically the right of life (as in liberty, pursuit of happiness etc). However, if she aborts that child prior to it being medically alive, then in my opinion the abortion would be legal even though my personal values are against any abortion.
Well, really the way to measure this is to see when we pronounce human vegetables as "dead". If we can tell when someone is dead, then by converse we should be able to tell when someone is alive. Typically these are heartbeat and brain waves, but I am not a MD.
Libertarians are split on the abortion issue. Some libertarians think that the right of a women to choose what to do with her body is paramount (I agree to an extent), and other libertarians think that the individual unborn child is also sovereign and is deserving of the same human rights as everyone else (this is what I fully support). In other words you don't have the right to kill your child because the child is a sovereign individual.
Libertarian leaning US Congressman Ron Paul who finished first in the MSNBC poll following the GOP primary debate last week absolutely opposses a national ID.
6:33 into this clip from the debate shows what he said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo
Actually, lack of specific enumeration DOES legally prohibit Congress and the Federal Gov from gettign involved.
"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. "
The flaw is modern interpertation of the ICC. People try to look at "original intent" when they should be looking at the "original meaning" of the words written down.
When the Constitution was written, the prhase "to regulate" meant 'to make regular'. In other words, no trade wars between the States. Open trade between all the states was the original meaning and purpose.
The books "Consitutional Chaos" and "The Constitution in Exile" explain this.
You do realize that healthcare and poverty are NOT issues that Congress is allowed to deal with, right? No where in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution is Congress permitted to 'fight poverty' or 'setup healthcare'.
The US was founded upon rights of the individuals and is NOT a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. In other words the majority is not allowed to vote to take the minorities' property. Why should I be able to reach into someone else's pocket for my own benefit? I SHOULDN'T!
Also, why should someone with money be forced to be charitable? They shouldn't! The government, or the majority, should not be able to dictate to others what they are allowed to do with their own property. Besides, charity comes from the heart. Being forced at gunpoint or the threat of jailtime for not giving money to other people is hardly charity; it's legalized robbery.
And finally the first poster hit it head-on. The reason for the high cost of healthcare is excessive governmental regulation, and even more recently, the glut of poverty illegal aliens from Mexico have brought in. When these illegals go to the ER and can't pay for it, the ER can't legally turn them down but yet they have to still get paid. So they use the paying customers to subsidize the cost of the illegals who are getting a free ride but shouldn't be in the country in the first place.
No it's not. Libertarianism is about rights, personal rights. Rights of the minority. It's about property rights. It's about doing what you want with your own property because it's yours and you own it, so long as what you do doesn't affect other people's rights.
It's a simple solution. Don't send women and ensure each male astronaut has a "bunk sock" that can be cleaned once a week or so. It works for the Navy!
Does anyone else find irony when you say "how about reading a source with less bias and more scientific references?" and then you promptly provide a link to Wikipedia?!?!
That's good, thanks for giving me a good belly laugh today.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, no where does it say it's a scientific poll. Oddly enough however, the Drudge poll has very similar results.
"We the People" already have representation in the Federal government - it's called the House of Representatives. The States also need to have representation which used to be called the Senate. Our current system short circuits our Republic.
That's right, there is a Republican who opposes this; Ron Paul of Texas. He is actually a libertarian but strictly opposes a national ID. You can see his response 6:33 in this video of the debate as he is running for President:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo
Unfortunately the States have conceded their representation to the Fed. Now that US Senators are no longer representatives of each state legislature, the states have ZERO say in what the Fed does to them. The 17th amendment should be repealed!
i on.amendmentxvii.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
No, because individuals are sovereign according to libertarian and 'social contract' philosophy. If we can tell when someone is dead, then we should be able to use the same metrics to determine when someone is alive (heartbeat, brainwaves, etc). Once someone is alive, they are entitled to all human rights, and in the US, these rights are protected by the Constitution.
If a woman aborts a baby that is alive, then she has violated the rights of that individual, specifically the right of life (as in liberty, pursuit of happiness etc). However, if she aborts that child prior to it being medically alive, then in my opinion the abortion would be legal even though my personal values are against any abortion.
Well, really the way to measure this is to see when we pronounce human vegetables as "dead". If we can tell when someone is dead, then by converse we should be able to tell when someone is alive. Typically these are heartbeat and brain waves, but I am not a MD.
Yes, I think he is a Constitutional conservative regarding abortion, but that in itself is a sticky subject.
Wrong answer.
Libertarians are split on the abortion issue. Some libertarians think that the right of a women to choose what to do with her body is paramount (I agree to an extent), and other libertarians think that the individual unborn child is also sovereign and is deserving of the same human rights as everyone else (this is what I fully support). In other words you don't have the right to kill your child because the child is a sovereign individual.
I don't have a "favorite federal program". As a libertarian and Constitutional conservative I dislike them all!
Libertarian leaning US Congressman Ron Paul who finished first in the MSNBC poll following the GOP primary debate last week absolutely opposses a national ID. 6:33 into this clip from the debate shows what he said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo
Actually, lack of specific enumeration DOES legally prohibit Congress and the Federal Gov from gettign involved.
i on.billofrights.html
"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. "
source:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
And by following your logic the following situation apply:
"We've tourtured people before, so it's still legal this time"
"We've owned slaves before and the courts have found it legal, so it must be ok"
"We've taken people's property and given it to businesses before, so it must be ok".
Your argument is fundamentally flawed and lacks logic.
The flaw is modern interpertation of the ICC. People try to look at "original intent" when they should be looking at the "original meaning" of the words written down.
When the Constitution was written, the prhase "to regulate" meant 'to make regular'. In other words, no trade wars between the States. Open trade between all the states was the original meaning and purpose.
The books "Consitutional Chaos" and "The Constitution in Exile" explain this.
You do realize that healthcare and poverty are NOT issues that Congress is allowed to deal with, right? No where in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution is Congress permitted to 'fight poverty' or 'setup healthcare'.
No.
The US was founded upon rights of the individuals and is NOT a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. In other words the majority is not allowed to vote to take the minorities' property. Why should I be able to reach into someone else's pocket for my own benefit? I SHOULDN'T!
Also, why should someone with money be forced to be charitable? They shouldn't! The government, or the majority, should not be able to dictate to others what they are allowed to do with their own property. Besides, charity comes from the heart. Being forced at gunpoint or the threat of jailtime for not giving money to other people is hardly charity; it's legalized robbery.
And finally the first poster hit it head-on. The reason for the high cost of healthcare is excessive governmental regulation, and even more recently, the glut of poverty illegal aliens from Mexico have brought in. When these illegals go to the ER and can't pay for it, the ER can't legally turn them down but yet they have to still get paid. So they use the paying customers to subsidize the cost of the illegals who are getting a free ride but shouldn't be in the country in the first place.
No it's not. Libertarianism is about rights, personal rights. Rights of the minority. It's about property rights. It's about doing what you want with your own property because it's yours and you own it, so long as what you do doesn't affect other people's rights.
They weren't talking about the pair of lips that have teeth ;-)
It's a simple solution. Don't send women and ensure each male astronaut has a "bunk sock" that can be cleaned once a week or so. It works for the Navy!
Moonshot? Nah. Shooting for Uranus! I wonder how many asstronauhts will sign up for that?
Seriously. I dont know where people get the idea that some people think that sex is bad. Most people think that adultery is bad, but sex itself isn't.
http://www.tshirthell.com/ has a great shirt that says "swollow or its going in your eye!"
;-)
I think it applies here.
A small but significant distinction. Thanks for pointing it out.
You do understand that students under the age of 18 cannot legally enter into contracts otherwise known as "agreements"?
Does anyone else find irony when you say "how about reading a source with less bias and more scientific references?" and then you promptly provide a link to Wikipedia?!?!
That's good, thanks for giving me a good belly laugh today.
The United States Federal government is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate food (do you see it listed in Article I Section 8?).
I personally don't want the government regulating my food, and I dont think the American Founding Fathers did either!!!
Gynecology and proctology; close but different!
I don't understand why we have a sewer so close to a playground.