Why I am a libertarian[W:50] (1 Viewer)

[Master PO]

The reason I am a Libertarian is that all while I was growing up, I always had issues with what I considered stupid rules in my home, at school or on the road. Once I grew up, I learned about libertarianism, studied it, and it made sense.

So what do I think makes sense? The idea that someone should not be punished for an act that did not cause harm. Meaning harm to another person or person's property.

I have since learned, that according to the Constitution, U.S. courts only have jurisdiction if there is a case (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases). In order for there to be a case, there needs to be standing, meaning an injured party.

This means that courts don't have jurisdiction if someone is accused of prostitution, illegal gambling, selling drugs, selling unregulated meat, selling raw milk, doing business without a license, not obeying regulations, etc., etc.

The problem I believe is people don't understand jurisdiction and therefore don't demand evidence of it in courts. And if you don't stand up for your rights, than you don't really have any.

See MarcStevens.net - No product or service should be provided at the barrel of a gun for more details.

while iam a libertarian, i have disagreement with your interpretation of law and courts

 

[Ace300]

Erm..... "not obeying regulations"? As in, no regulation can be enforced in a judicial court? Or no administrative courts either, meaning in turn that no regulation would enforceable. There are regulations you probably want enforced but don't know about.

Since there is no injured party by not obeying a regulation, there is no standing, and hence no crime. Regardless of what regulations I may like to enforce on other people that are not on my property, it is irrelevant. I have no right to enforce my regulations on my neighbors.

Anyway, I know I cut up your post, but is the example why I can only countenance libertarianism on a social front, aka, drugs, gambling, prostitution, marriage, etc. I very much want there to be government regulations against things like child labor that can be enforced in a court. Human nature is such that a good amount of people will generally engage in any abuse they can get away with.

Since parents are the proper caretakers of children, if they are working, there is no injured party by them working. I understand you like to impose your morals on others, but you have no right to, IMO.

Does the guy running the site you linked to actually believe the slogan- a "no STATE" project? A "voluntary society"? He must be naive in the extreme if he means that literally. He should probably visit somewhere like Somalia or Sudan if he wants to see what happens when human beings exist over a large area not controlled by a sufficiently strong government: your government becomes local warlords instead of a centralized bureaucracy, and generally, your life becomes a hell of a lot worse unless you are buddy buddy with the warlord.

Yes he does. I agree it is a pipe dream. The United States government worked just fine without income taxes or regulations for decades.

No, no I think you must be wrong about that. I'm fairly certain we went over jurisdiction in law school. I probably still have my miserable "Federal Courts" textbook lying around somewhere.

You disagree that courts only have jurisdiction if there is a case? I would love to hear what your text book has to say about that.

 

[DA60]

Re: Why I am a libertarian

Why?

I dunno.

You like getting creamed in federal elections?



Actually, I like several things that your party stands for...but NOT all.

 

[Carjosse]

So you don't know of any court cases then where the claim was made that not paying taxes is an injury to the public and it was upheld by the courts?

It is by default.

 

[Ace300]

I think your understanding of "the judicial power" is incomplete.

The government IS empowered to pass laws in accordance with its enumerated powers, and if those laws are legitimate, it seems to me the judicial power extends to how those laws are written and enforced.

Well, the Constitution says the judicial branch can only hear cases, and in legalese in order for there to be a case, there needs to be standing, meaning an injured party. Disobeying statutory law does not mean there is an injured party.

 

[Ace300]

Depends on the tax and the program losing out on the funding. Like it or not, much of society is very dependent on taxpayer money.

For the record, I generally oppose most taxes. I support some 'sin' taxes and believe government should be mostly funded through land rent and pollution taxes.

So pick a tax, and tell me who the injured party is. Please reference the court case.

 

[Henrin]

That is the neo-liberal/neo-classical take on land. Before neo-liberalism corrupted economics, economists recognized three factors of production: land, capital, and labor. Land is clearly distinct from capital for a couple reasons: 1. Capital is created, land is not 2. Capital can be increased in supply, land is fixed.

We can create islands now though.

 

[Ace300]

Re: Why I am a libertarian

So, Henrin, you and Ace300 are laughably wrong. If you don't want to be a citizen, you need to renounce your citizenship: https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...aws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

Why is it that so many libertarians seem to think that their personal declarations about what is or is not the law determine objective reality? Go become a trapper-hermit in some remote part of the Canadian hinterlands if you want to be free of "government." Otherwise, you're stuck with it.

I am not sure why you think I am laughably wrong. I never claimed the government thugs would listen to reason. Politicians are people that are good at one thing, and that is winning a popularity contest. Lawyers and judges are just people that went to school and passed an exam. It doesn't mean they understand law or reason.

 

[Ace300]

Re: Why I am a libertarian

"Prove jurisdiction"? What? The US has jurisdiction over various territories and it really doesn't matter what psuedo-philosophical metaphysical nonsense this Marc Stevens spouts. Practical reality is that the US has 50 states and various territories, which it generally took by force, and which it exercises jurisdiction over by force. That's the way the world works.

It sure would be nice if we could all sing Kumbaya and not screw each other over at the first chance we get, but we humans aren't all that nice. You can howl at the moon all you like, but jurisdiction over territory exists because we said it exists and we back up what we say with guns. Meanwhile, jurisdiction over court cases exists because Article 3 of the constitution says so and the constitution was ratified by people who agreed that it should be the governing document (ditto various state constitutions).

You can thumb your nose at them all you like, but this is how reality works.

Ugh. I'm sorry I bothered even reading the OP....

I know might makes right. Just FYI, the reality is that states don't exist. The Constitution is a piece of paper (wood made into a pulp) with ink on it that people's brains interpret as "writing". Government is just a group of people and buildings with the people hurting other people that don't obey them.

 

[Ace300]

I've noticed throughout this thread that you have made assertions without any supporting citations, yet you regularly demand other posters to provide citations for their assertions (Nevermind that if you demand legal research you should probably be prepared to pay someone money. That stuff takes time, even if you are really good)

I'm not really in the mood to do free legal research on the question of whether there are a any appellate decisions ruling on a constitutional challenge to a tax law in which a court says that refusal to pay taxes is a refusal to support society. I'm having a hard time imagining how it might become an appellate issue in the first place.

Maybe you should research the litigation surrounding Wesley Snipe's tax case. I think I recall some sort of defense along the lines of the unconstitutionality of taxes, so perhaps they argued about it on appeal. If that doesn't pan out, expand to constitutional challenges to tax law. I'll leave you to decide the search terms and boolean structure of the search.

However, I doubt that the constitutionality of a tax law would come down to whether the purpose is to support "society" as opposed to the government that society agreed to via ratification, so there probably aren't any such cases unless the judge was bored and felt like writing a few paragraphs of dicta.

It seems you don't understand the burden of proof. You all are the ones claiming not paying taxes results in an injured party, legally speaking, so the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I don't know of any cases where such claim was made.

 

[Ace300]

Re: Why I am a libertarian

Chances she or he is supporting a drug habit or getting abused by their pimp. You must not understand the pitfalls involved is these illicit professions.

Do you have some court case you can reference to prove your point?

 

[Ace300]

I believe they called it the social contract and safety net.

The social contract does not meet the elements of a contract, as such it is not a contract.

The social contract has never been argued in court and therefore never been sustained in court either.

If you are going to make legal arguments, it would help if you had some evidence.

 

[Ace300]

I did answer your question. Regulations are about preventing the conditions for there to be an injured party.

So there is no injured party by not obeying regulations then, right?

 

[Hypothetical]

Re: Why I am a libertarian

I know might makes right. Just FYI, the reality is that states don't exist. The Constitution is a piece of paper (wood made into a pulp) with ink on it that people's brains interpret as "writing". Government is just a group of people and buildings with the people hurting other people that don't obey them.

gotta give it to you, even though I do not necessarily agree with your level of anti government: this is true and we should think of it like this every time they do... basically anything... to attain the right perspective.

 

[calamity]

The social contract does not meet the elements of a contract, as such it is not a contract.

The social contract has never been argued in court and therefore never been sustained in court either.

If you are going to make legal arguments, it would help if you had some evidence.

I guess you never heard of FDR. :roll:

When Franklin Roosevelt Clashed with the Supreme Court ? and Lost | History | Smithsonian

 

[Geoist]

So pick a tax, and tell me who the injured party is.

This link sums it up.

Please reference the court case.

For what?

 

[calamity]

The social contract is a myth. Calling something the safety net doesn't mean much to me. Why would people demand to pay into welfare when they don't want to help people voluntarily?

Ask them.

 

[Geoist]

We can create islands now though.

Yup, which occupy space. You are talking about the basic concept of land, I am referring to the economic concept. When I speak of land I am not just talking about solid ground but also bodies of water, minerals, the electromagnetic spectrum, etc.

 

[Geoist]

So there is no injured party by not obeying regulations then, right?

Not directly, no. The argument on the pro-regulation side is that regulation limits/prevents injured parties.

 

[Carjosse]

Re: Why I am a libertarian

I am not sure why you think I am laughably wrong. I never claimed the government thugs would listen to reason. Politicians are people that are good at one thing, and that is winning a popularity contest. Lawyers and judges are just people that went to school and passed an exam. It doesn't mean they understand law or reason.

It means they know more about it than you.

 

[WCH]

Re: Why I am a libertarian

Do you have some court case you can reference to prove your point?

Court case? How old are you?

 

[soylentgreen]

I am curious about something with this thread. I wonder if a libertarian could answer this for me.

Once upon a time i would have thought it impossible for a thread to appear on the topic of " why i am a libertarian" without mentioning rand at least once and usually very much more than once.
You could spot a libertarian easily by the fact that they usually had a picture of one of rands books as their avatar picture. She was the profitess of libertarians.

So what has happened to her? 18 pages into this thread and not one mention of her.

I kind of miss her as it was good fun trying to tear her apart. So what happened?

 

[Henrin]

I am curious about something with this thread. I wonder if a libertarian could answer this for me.

Once upon a time i would have thought it impossible for a thread to appear on the topic of " why i am a libertarian" without mentioning rand at least once and usually very much more than once.
You could spot a libertarian easily by the fact that they usually had a picture of one of rands books as their avatar picture. She was the profitess of libertarians.

So what has happened to her? 18 pages into this thread and not one mention of her.

I kind of miss her as it was good fun trying to tear her apart. So what happened?

Ayn Rand was an objectivist, which she herself founded. As for me, I was not influenced by her or her ideology, so I have no reason to bring her up.

Saying that, I agree with a lot of things she had to say and found that the way she put them was perfection. Still, I didn't take anything from her so those agreements were preexisting.

 

[soylentgreen]

Ayn Rand was an objectivist, which she herself founded. As for me, I was not influenced by her or her ideology, so I have no reason to bring her up.

Saying that, I agree with a lot of things she had to say and found that the way she put them was perfection. Still, I didn't take anything from her so those agreements were preexisting.

Ok let's put that to the test then

Lets start with rand basic 101. Altruism.

And as it is your belief then i will let you tell me what rand said rather than i tell you what you are thinking.

 

[Henrin]

Ok let's put that to the test then

Lets start with rand basic 101. Altruism.

And as it is your belief then i will let you tell me what rand said rather than i tell you what you are thinking.

Are you claiming that I'm lying?