Quote :

"The End of Libertarianism THE FINANCIAL COLLAPSE PROVES THAT ITS IDEOLOGY MAKES NO SENSE. A source of mild entertainment amid the financial carnage has been watching libertarians scurrying to explain how the global financial crisis is the result of too much government intervention rather than too little. One line of argument casts as villain the Community Reinvestment Act, which prevents banks from "redlining" minority neighborhoods as not creditworthy. Another theory blames Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for causing the trouble by subsidizing and securitizing mortgages with an implicit government guarantee. An alternative thesis is that past bailouts encouraged investors to behave recklessly in anticipation of a taxpayer rescue. There are rebuttals to these claims and rejoinders to the rebuttals. But to summarize, the libertarian apologetics fall wildly short of providing any convincing explanation for what went wrong. The argument as a whole is reminiscent of wearying dorm-room debates that took place circa 1989 about whether the fall of the Soviet bloc demonstrated the failure of communism. Academic Marxists were never going to be convinced that anything that happened in the real world could invalidate their belief system. Utopians of the right, libertarians are just as convinced that their ideas have yet to be tried, and that they would work beautifully if we could only just have a do-over of human history. Like all true ideologues, they find a way to interpret mounting evidence of error as proof that they were right all along. [...] The best thing you can say about libertarians is that because their views derive from abstract theory, they tend to be highly principled and rigorous in their logic. Those outside of government at places like the Cato Institute and Reason magazine are just as consistent in their opposition to government bailouts as to the kind of regulation that might have prevented one from being necessary. "Let failed banks fail" is the purist line. This approach would deliver a wonderful lesson in personal responsibility, creating thousands of new jobs in the soup-kitchen and food-pantry industries. The worst thing you can say about libertarians is that they are intellectually immature, frozen in the worldview many of them absorbed from reading Ayn Rand novels in high school. Like other ideologues, libertarians react to the world's failing to conform to their model by asking where the world went wrong. Their heroic view of capitalism makes it difficult for them to accept that markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk, and misallocate resources or that financial systems without vigorous government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention constitute a recipe for disaster. They are bankrupt, and this time, there will be no bailout."

http://www.slate.com/id/2202489/

A larger article will be posted in Newsweek.

Whatever your opinion of libertarianism is-- the conclusion of this article is impossible to deny. Libertarianism is dead. Lack of realism (and sophistry, imho) killed it.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 8:42 PM. Reason : ]

10/18/2008 8:41:40 PM

ahh yes. let the government get involved, practically run an investment bank, watch the whole shit collapse, and then blame it on the free market. That makes perfect sense

10/18/2008 8:49:27 PM

Wow, a left-wing site lumps conservative economics into libertairan theory in general, then proceeds to dance upon its grave.

Let's forget the whole host of, oh, I don't know, social issues that libertarians have been way better on than liberals. Things like civil liberties, the war on drugs - you know, shit liberals have proven that when push comes to shove, they really don't give a shit about. So it's a little fitting to see yet another left-winger trumpet "The death of Libertarianism!"

But yeah. Dancing on the grave of libertarianism/capitalism. The strange rituals liberals go to in order to reassure themselves each and every time a financial crisis looms - despite the fact that since Marx, capitalism has proven to be the beast that just won't die.

Trust me - like every claim before it, this one too is going to be revealed to be just as premature and sophomoric as the rest.

But hey, don't let me stop the party.

10/18/2008 8:53:16 PM

Libertarianism in its pure form is a stupid ideology, just like practically anything else in its pure form.

But, we could definitely go for some more true civil liberty advocates in our government.

10/18/2008 9:18:05 PM

and we aint gonna get any this election, that's for damned sure. one candidate is against queers, the other will sue a fucking TV station for broadcasting a commercial they don't like

10/18/2008 9:27:00 PM

"Let's forget the whole host of, oh, I don't know, social issues that libertarians have been way better on than liberals."

I'm calling BS. Most libertarians I know, granted its not a large pool, and from some I've observed online on various political sites, talk a good game on social issues, then vote conservative republican and screw those very social issues over. I was almost starting to like BJ Lawson, until I met him & had a conversation with him about gay marriage where his position was he is somewhere in between opposing it and making it a states right, but he'd rather not talk about it too much. There were other things I didn't like too, I agree with him that some times less government makes sense, but when you think federal involvement & funding in education, social security, federal funding for the research triangle, college aid/grants, and the like are unconstitutional then you are kind of missing the point of government.

10/18/2008 9:37:49 PM

government meddling in the mortgage industry set the stage for this collapse.

10/18/2008 9:38:53 PM

You only have to ask an average american if they:

wish the government would be more fiscally conservative


wish the government would lower their taxes


and wish the government protected individual rights more

to realize that Libertarianism is not dead

10/18/2008 9:47:09 PM

^ that still doesn't capture with libertarianism is.

All those fall under conservative ideology as well, but conservatism and libertarianism are still distinct ideologies.

And I don't think people really know what "individual rights" are, because most people are on board with the reforms post 9/11 than trample these rights. Most people (by a slim margin) don't care if the gov. erodes their rights for the perception of security.

cue quote on rights/security

10/18/2008 9:49:31 PM

actually, federal funding of education is a bad thing. It allows bullshit mandates by bureaucrats in washington who don't understand a damned thing about education to mess up choices that need to be made by those "on the ground" in the cities where those mandates are wreaking havoc. It wastes money that could be going to education by forcing it to be funneled through numerous hands, all of which take their little share.

social security? ha!

and yes, my dear, all of those, save for federal research grants, are blatantly unConstitutional. Find me the lines in the Constitution where they are allowed, and I would accept it, but those lines don't exist

10/18/2008 9:51:39 PM

Quote :

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

10/18/2008 9:54:13 PM

ahh yes, the preamble. The thing that states the purpose of the Constitution. ie, "doing the following will promote these things." By following the Constitution, you promote the general welfare.

10/18/2008 9:57:59 PM

I actually knew you were going to say that, but i'm too lazy right now to read the constitution looking for the info you request.

Plus, it would have fooled a n00b soap-boxer.

I bet its in there though.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 10:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/18/2008 10:03:22 PM

ahaha. nice retraction

10/18/2008 10:04:14 PM

Quote :

"I'm calling BS. Most libertarians I know, granted its not a large pool, and from some I've observed online on various political sites, talk a good game on social issues, then vote conservative republican and screw those very social issues over. "

So, basically like most liberals? Only, substitute out "Republican" for "Democrat."

Call me when Obama and Biden actually get serious on any matter of civil liberties. Including Biden's retarded hedge on gay marriage. (But oh, wait - we don't apply those standards to Democrats, now do we?)

Feel free to clue me in when a liberal actually treat rolling back the War on Drugs as a priority, either. Don't tend to hear much of a peep from them on that front, either.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 10:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2008 10:09:37 PM

Quote :

"I actually knew you were going to say that, but i'm too lazy right now to read the constitution looking for the info you request. Plus, it would have fooled a n00b soap-boxer. I bet its in there though."

*yawn*

Quote :

"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 arts 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?"

-James Madison, Federalist 41

This is amateur-hour bullshit, with your canard being over 200 years old. And it's still wrong.

10/18/2008 10:15:50 PM

It always amazes me the mental gymnastics it takes to claim on the one hand, these series of government regulations and interferences had an effect on the behaviors of people, either by legislating that behavior directly or indirectly encouraging it, and all for the positive, but on the other hand, deny that they could have had anything at all to do with encouraging the destructive behaviors that brought this economic crisis about.

10/18/2008 10:53:53 PM

how can something that was never alive die?

10/18/2008 11:21:15 PM

Quote :

" but when you think federal involvement & funding in education, social security, federal funding for the research triangle, college aid/grants, and the like are unconstitutional then you are kind of missing the point of government."

When you think all that stuff is constitutional, you are kind of missing the point of limited government.

Quote :

"Their heroic view of capitalism makes it difficult for them to accept that markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk, and misallocate resources or that financial systems without vigorous government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention constitute a recipe for disaster. They are bankrupt, and this time, there will be no bailout.""

So markets are irrational and government always provides pragmatic intervention and oversight?

In actuality, government is seldom rational, its socialistic meddling is often the reason markets misunderstand risk and misallocate resources. Just ask Fannie and Freddie.

10/18/2008 11:56:21 PM

I love how liberals bitch and bitch and bitch and bitch and whine and cry like a little fucking girl about how bad the government is.


but they still want to give them more money and power.

10/19/2008 12:02:31 AM

^ that's why the govt is so bad. it lacks $ and power

10/19/2008 12:03:26 AM

Quote :

"Libertarianism in its pure form is a stupid ideology, just like practically anything else in its pure form."

Ha. So only moderates avoid stupidity? Wonderful.

10/19/2008 12:04:06 AM

well whatever it is you embrace is batshit insanity.

you should work on avoiding that first.

10/19/2008 12:05:45 AM

Thank you, but I'm sticking with batshit insanity. (I get that description wherever I go, so it must be an accurate label.)

To the point, I find self-righteous moderates rather annoying.

"Look at those idiots on the extremes. I'm not dumb enough to fall for that. Clearly the answer lies in the middle."

10/19/2008 12:10:32 AM

I never said it lies in the middle, but it's clearly not on the extremes.

10/19/2008 1:16:54 AM

That you use clearly in your response blows my mind.

Needless to say, I do not accept your assumption that the extremes are automatically wrong.

10/19/2008 1:19:30 AM

I'll concede the point if you can list a single example of a rational extremist philosophy.

10/19/2008 1:35:15 AM

The main reason that most Libertarians vote conservative when a Libertarian candidate is unavailable is that it's a hell of a lot easier to ignore government intrusion into your private life than it is in your fiscal life. I can pretty much do whatever I want as long as I don't get caught (like smoke pot were I so inclined, practice an unpopular religion, fuck whoever I want, etc.) whereas there's no getting around higher taxes.

10/19/2008 1:39:26 AM

^ except Obama at least is not proposing raising taxes on the vast majority of people.

And libertarian philosophy is against corporations anyway.

10/19/2008 1:42:53 AM

since when do republicans not intrude on your private life?

10/19/2008 1:43:49 AM

^ he's saying the DO intrude on your private life, but it's easier to ignore.

It's not realistic for the gov. to bust ALL pot users, for example, but it's much easier for the gov. to bust tax dodgers.

10/19/2008 1:47:10 AM

For me, that's a long list. Libertarianism, the various forms of anarchism, primitivism, technocracy, transhumanism, radical feminism, white nationalism, and so on. I've found extremist positions to be the most logically consistent. Even extreme religious doctrines often follow predictably from the initial principles and goals. I try not to dismiss things I disagree with as irrational.

I suspect you consider all of the above to be stupid. I'll have to use a different tactic to get anywhere. So note that many of the systems and values Americans respect today started as fringe movements. Those crazy democrats, abolitionists, and feminists!

10/19/2008 1:53:35 AM

Quote :

"And libertarian philosophy is against corporations anyway. "

No it's not. Where do you get that from?

10/19/2008 1:55:15 AM

You know, here's the other half of it:

If Democrats even offered someone who had the balls to say, "Hey. I'd like to speak to some libertarian-ish rhetoric on social issues. End - or at least scale back - the War on Drugs. Restore civil liberties. Get the government out of the marriage game" - I'd probably vote for this person in a heartbeat.

But in all of my years of voting, I have yet to once ever encounter a Democrat like that running for office.

So what does that say about Democrats, exactly?

10/19/2008 1:57:03 AM

Personally I'm more of an anarcho-capitalist than anything else. It's pretty close to the pure form of Libertarianism that is not even really espoused by the Libertarian party anymore.

From a realistic standpoint I think I actually favor either a benevolent dictatorship (absolute power exercised only when absolutely necessary to ensure the continued free exchange of money and ideas) or a much more limited form of our current Republic. I think way, way, way too many people are allowed to vote. There really should be some sort of requirement for franchise other than being 18 and not a felon.

10/19/2008 1:59:33 AM

There's really only 1 party, just a few variations on trivial details. Both parties are in favor of more government, more taxes, and more spending, they only vary on who and how much more they want to tax and what they want to spend the shit on. How is it possible that we continue to vote for people who don't care or don't understand the idea of spending less than you take in?

10/19/2008 2:01:20 AM

^^^^ Corporations can only exist because of special laws that allow them to be treated as a separate individual, libertarians would have no such laws, and therefore corporations as we know them wouldn't exist.

That's not to say that massive corporate-like entities couldn't exist, just that what we know a corporation to be wouldn't exist.

[Edited on October 19, 2008 at 2:01 AM. Reason : ]

10/19/2008 2:01:30 AM

Well, specifically, the legal fiction of a liability-limiting institutional barrier between shareholders in an enterprise and the actions of that enterprise would be gone.

I've heard arguments both way on the issue, but as I've gotten older, I've become much more favorably disposed toward doing away with the corporate legal entity.

10/19/2008 2:07:13 AM

I suppose that's true. I'm sure it would still be quite easy for something like Sony to exist in much the same form as it has now with minor modifications. I guess I'm just used to people screaming about evil corporations that I didn't realize you meant it in the actual, legal definition, and in that case, yes, it is true that corporations in their present form would likely not exist in a Libertarian state.

10/19/2008 2:08:05 AM

Quote :

"Libertarianism in its pure form is a stupid ideology, just like practically anything else in its pure form."

Sure, I love eating a little poison with my food.

I love drinking a little battery acid with my water.

10/19/2008 2:16:29 AM

I am far from a libertarian, but JW kinda undermines his own argument in the piece.

Quote :

"As with the government failures that made 9/11 possible, neglecting to prevent the crash of '08 was a sin of omission—less the result of deregulation per se than of disbelief in financial regulation as a legitimate mechanism. At any point from 1998 on, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, various members of their administrations, or a number of congressional leaders with oversight authority might have stood up and said, "Hey, I think we're in danger and need some additional rules here.""

http://www.slate.com/id/2202489/

So, in one breath he says that markets are not perfect and that this surprising fact invalidates the entire libertarian position. In the next breath, he says that the crisis could have been avoided if only the government wasn't so imperfect.

How does this invalidate libertarianism, again? The market failed this time, but the government didn't do much better. IOW: We can't always rely on markets to avoid occasional crashes and we can't always rely on the government to prevent them. Sounds like what he should have said is that we just have to live with the reality of occasional market crashes and recessions.

SURPRISE! Thanks Jacob. That's some blockbuster stuff. Markets and governments are composed of imperfect people that occasionally make imperfect decisions. OMMMGGGG!!!!

[Edited on October 19, 2008 at 2:33 AM. Reason : ``]

10/19/2008 2:29:34 AM

^^Pure water tastes flat and bland. There's no such thing as "pure" food.

To imply that anything but your kind of purity is infected with a kind of poison sounds pretty crazed.

[Edited on October 19, 2008 at 2:30 AM. Reason : ]

10/19/2008 2:30:10 AM

Quote :

"I'm calling BS. Most libertarians I know, granted its not a large pool, and from some I've observed online on various political sites, talk a good game on social issues, then vote conservative republican and screw those very social issues over."

I fall into this category sometimes. It's pretty simple, really: most capital-L Libertarians are crazy, (and rarely have any chance whatsoever of winning, anyway). I can pretty easily count on one hand the Democrats I've voted for in my life, and I may very well never vote for another one. Republicans are often the lesser of the evils, although they've gotten so bad that my solution nowadays is often just to not vote (at least in general elections).

While I lean slightly left socially, I am substantially harder to the right fiscally, and those are hotter-button issues for me, generally.

Quote :

" when you think federal involvement & funding in education, social security, federal funding for the research triangle, college aid/grants, and the like are unconstitutional then you are kind of missing the point of government. "

...or maybe you have a basic familiarity with the fucking U.S. Constitution. SOME of those things are good ideas, at least to a certain extent, but none of them are the job of or even permissible as FEDERAL matters (depending on what you mean by funding for the RTP). Furthermore, none of them embody the "point of government". The point of government is to maximize freedom and fairness. Sometimes this is, indeed, accomplished through regulation and other government involvement. Most of the time, it's not.

Quote :

"ahh yes, the preamble. The thing that states the purpose of the Constitution. ie, "doing the following will promote these things." By following the Constitution, you promote the general welfare. "

That's a good way to look at it, and it only stands to reason...I mean, if the "general welfare" clause is supposed to be a blank check, why is the rest of the Constitution even there? (Same could be said for the interstate commerce clause, which, in my opinion, is stretched in even more absurd ways to accomodate unconstitional things).

Quote :

"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?""

...and there we go, haha.

Quote :

"markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk, and misallocate resources"

...in the short term...

which is better than the alternative.

In the long term, markets are the best thing going.

Quote :

"I've found extremist positions to be the most logically consistent. "

Yes, almost by definition. That's not where the crazy lies, though.

10/19/2008 7:12:54 AM

most people that say they are libertarians aren't anyway. I mean it sounds cool I guess.

10/19/2008 7:20:15 AM

Quote :

"and yes, my dear, all of those, save for federal research grants, are blatantly unConstitutional. Find me the lines in the Constitution where they are allowed, and I would accept it, but those lines don't exist"

aaronburro and DrSteveChaos--If you guys knew shit about the Constitution, you'd know that "general welfare" isn't just in the Preamble.

In Article I, at the very beginning of Section 8, where the powers of the Legislative Branch are enumerated, you'll see this:

Quote :

"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"

add to that the elastic clause at the end of Section 8:

Quote :

"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."

throw in a healthy dose of the interstate commerce clause (and Gibbons v. Ogden):

Quote :

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"

and the bane of Libertarians existence, the 16th Amendment:

Quote :

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

=

LOLibertarianism

Why do libertarians hate the Constitution so much? Also, how many decades do you think it'll be until talk of deregulation is again taken seriously? Will it even be in our lifetimes?



[Edited on October 19, 2008 at 9:52 AM. Reason : ]

10/19/2008 9:48:34 AM

And the alternative is what? Your idiology calls for a regulated free market? Really? Your idiology assumes private property and free enterprise, how is that not a victory for libertarianism when compared to the idiology of 50 years ago which called for state ownership of the means of production?

Classical socialism has been defeated. Even the enemies of liberty admit it.

[Edited on October 19, 2008 at 10:41 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/19/2008 10:41:01 AM

Quote :

"aaronburro and DrSteveChaos--If you guys knew shit about the Constitution, you'd know that "general welfare" isn't just in the Preamble. In Article I, at the very beginning of Section 8, where the powers of the Legislative Branch are enumerated, you'll see this:"

And James Madison was specifically addressing this in Federalist 41. Since you didn't actually bother to read it the first time, here it is again:

Quote :

"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 arts 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?"

So, Boone, since James Madison, one of the architects of the Constitution and a pretty sharp guy was so clearly wrong on the meaning of something he helped to write, what exactly is the point of enumerating the powers of the Federal Government if they're all contained within the General Welfare clause of Article I, Section 8? Better yet, where exactly are the powers of the Federal Government proscribed at all?

In short, why bother having an Article I, Section 8, according to your interpretation, that consists of anything but, "Provide for the General Welfare?"

Quote :

"throw in a healthy dose of the interstate commerce clause (and Gibbons v. Ogden):"

Interstate commerce wasn't interpreted to grant the broad power it was until the 20th century. Until then, it was interpreted by the courts to mean that Congress had the power to normalize interstate commerce - i.e., prevent states from erecting barriers to interstate commerce, like tariffs, etc.

You know, things you'd be aware of had you actually even had a passing familiarity with the problems of the Articles of Confederation. Also the reason the Constitution included the exclusive power of the Federal Government to coin money.

Quote :

"and the bane of Libertarians existence, the 16th Amendment:"

Seeing as it was ratified through the process outlined in the Constitution, I have no specific objection to it. No one except the tinfoil hat types decries the income tax as unconstitutional - nice strawman there, buddy.

Quote :

"LOLibertarianism"

Seriously, is this best you have? This is pathetic. Honestly pathetic. Most of this stuff is high school civics and you're getting it wrong.

Quote :

"Why do libertarians hate the Constitution so much?"

Clearly it's you who has a deficiency of love or understanding for the Constitution. Obviously, the Federal Government is unlimited in its scope, as long it's for "the General Welfare" - so why do we even bother having a Constitution?

Try failing a little less next time.

Quote :

"Also, how many decades do you think it'll be until talk of deregulation is again taken seriously? Will it even be in our lifetimes?"

Just keep reassuring yourself that your opponents are safely dead and marginalized. That's the ticket. Dance on their grave and assume their dead. That way, you'll never see it coming when they spring back to life. Because they always do, and despite your narrative of deregulation being put into the cold, cold ground - it's far from dead this time, too.

10/19/2008 11:58:49 AM

Quote :

"and the bane of Libertarians existence, the 16th Amendment: "

What about all the controversy around this amendment and its ratification.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

Also the definition of Income is pretty controversial. Some have said Income was meant to be corporate gains not individual wages exchanged for labor.

Quote :

"^ that still doesn't capture with libertarianism is. All those fall under conservative ideology as well, but conservatism and libertarianism are still distinct ideologies. "

True, conservative ideology does cover all of those points. However, a lot of politicians labeled as conservative currently in our government, well, arent very conservative. Thats why you see so many more people turning to libertarians this election (well, we will see)


another thing about libertarianism. Atleast it has a consistent ideology that its representatives try to adhere to. Its ideas just seem more concrete and thought out than "family values" or some other abstract rhetoric that in the end just allows politicians to make it up as they go along.

10/19/2008 12:00:00 PM

I ignored the Federalist quote because I assumed almost two centuries of Supreme Court precedent trumped anonymously-signed Op-Ed pieces.

Was I wrong?

I mean, ask yourself why the Federalist Papers were even written-- to convince guys like you (Anti-Federalists) to adopt the Constitution. Now given that, is it really the best source we have for interpreting a clause that may or may not grant the government more power?

Can you not accept that a broad interpretation of the Elastic Clause is certainly not unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has certainly accepted it as Constitutional?

If not, I think you can make a name for yourself if you have a strong case against a loose interpretation of the Elastic Clause. Just think! Dr. Steve v. US!

10/19/2008 12:25:26 PM

Quote :

"I ignored the Federalist quote because I assumed almost two centuries of Supreme Court precedent trumped anonymously-signed Op-Ed pieces. Was I wrong?"

You're wrong on the whole "two centuries" part. The expansive interpretation of the GW clause is a novel legal phenomena, not occurring until the 20th century. Prior to that, the prevailing understanding was that outlined by one of the document's architects.

Now, hm. I wonder why we'd go back to documents written about the legal work we're trying to interpret. Perhaps because of ambiguous wording which leads to arguments over what specified powers mean? Or to see if those arguments were hashed out as well at the time of its adoption?

Nah.

Quote :

"I mean, ask yourself why the Federalist Papers were even written-- to convince guys like you (Anti-Federalists) to adopt the Constitution. Now given that, is it really the best source we have for interpreting a clause that may or may not grant the government more power?"

It was also written by someone who helped create that document. So when he says, "Actually, no - this doesn't provide for an unlimited scope of powers the Federal Government," one might actually think he was something of, oh I don't know, an authority on the matter.

Quote :

"Can you not accept that a broad interpretation of the Elastic Clause is certainly not unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has certainly accepted it as Constitutional?"

It wasn't considered constitutional until the 20th century. This is my point, and has been for quite some time. In its original inception, your interpretation was flatly refuted. The courts then proceeded to flatly refute your interpretation for nearly 150 years. Which just might be something to consider.

Meanwhile, I notice you don't bother to answer my question about just where the limits of the Federal Government are placed, given your interpretation. I wonder if that was intentional? After all, again - why bother even having Article I, Section 8, when it's all covered in the very first clause? What powers are prohibited to the Federal Government at all?

In short, why bother enumerating the powers of the Federal Government in the first place?

Your silence on this matter is rather telling, I think.

10/19/2008 12:34:06 PM