lawrocket 3 #101 June 12, 2009 Google "a switch in time saves nine." Well, why should you? You already knew that FDR was having problems that his New Deal was unconstitutional. You knew about his plan to pack the court with judges who would be his shills. You know all that. And I'm sure you can tell me all about Wickard v. Filburn's test, which means I can't piss wihout it being subject to regulation under interstate commerce. I should have gone to school in Canada. Then I would have learned about cases like that, which I still haven't heard of. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #102 June 12, 2009 QuoteI should have gone to school in Canada. Then I would have learned about cases like that, which I still haven't heard of. I understand that finishing secondary school in Canada automatically qualifies you to join the bar of your choice. I'm pretty sure you don't even need to take the bar exam.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #103 June 12, 2009 Well, yes. Just because the commerce clause allows Congress to "regulate Commerce...among the several States" it does not mean that Congress may not regulate non-commercial and completely intrastate activity. The reasoning is that if everybody did it, it would affect interstate commerce. So that which previously limited congressional powers now is limitless. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #104 June 12, 2009 Quote you sound like another libertarian/anarchist tax obsessive (the only thing that has value in libertarian fantasy land is the dollar - all bow down) Funny you should say that, what with all your posts about the inheritance tax.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #105 June 12, 2009 QuoteQuote.... Also note the commerce clause didn't really take off until the FDR admin. That what when "progressives" stopped interpreting the Constitution's word and replacing it with what they thought the Constitution should say. .. obviously, like so many Americans you don't even know you're own history, in my day we had rigorous (meaning no easy grade) 2 years of 'AMERICAN' history before we got out of high school ... and this was in Canada ... Your cite is about actual interstate commerce. We're talking about how the commerce clause is abused to justify laws a reasonable person would accept are far outside the scope which didn't start until the 1930s. For instance a small farmer got in trouble growing wheat for his own use on top of his government production quota for sale. In Wickard v. Filburn the court decided that could be controlled under the commerce clause because if he hadn't grown extra for himself he would have bought it in an act of interstate commerce. Many states allow medical marijuana grown within the state, prescribed in the state, and consumed entirely within the state. Patients are even permitted to grow their own. The Federal government is allowed to prohibit this because "[h]ome-grown marijuana displaces drugs sold in both the open drug market and the black drug market regulated by [the Controlled Substances Act]." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #106 June 13, 2009 Quote Quote you sound like another libertarian/anarchist tax obsessive (the only thing that has value in libertarian fantasy land is the dollar - all bow down) Funny you should say that, what with all your posts about the inheritance tax. True. As a libertarian I'm about doing with my money what I want to do. Dreamdancer is also interesteed in doing what he wants with my money. And yours. But don't tell him/her what to do - dd only dows with others' money. Dd's money is dd's. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #107 June 13, 2009 QuoteQuote(the only thing that has value in libertarian fantasy land is the dollar - all bow down) QuoteThe only thing that has value in Libertarian-land is the INDIVIDUAL. Groups have rights only in so far as they are collections of INDIVIDUALS, each with their own rights. ***Libertarian socialism (sometimes called socialist anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved (or at least drastically reduced in scope), and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production. This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property, in order that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.” Libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of direct democracy. Many libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule, while others propose that a minimal, non-hierarchical version is unobjectionable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialismstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #108 June 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote(the only thing that has value in libertarian fantasy land is the dollar - all bow down) QuoteThe only thing that has value in Libertarian-land is the INDIVIDUAL. Groups have rights only in so far as they are collections of INDIVIDUALS, each with their own rights. ***Libertarian socialism (sometimes called socialist anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved (or at least drastically reduced in scope), and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production. This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property, in order that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.” Libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of direct democracy. Many libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule, while others propose that a minimal, non-hierarchical version is unobjectionable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism Libertarian Socialism? That's a contradiction if I've ever heard one. Also has nothing to do with true libertarianism, but I guess that little detail isn't too important to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #109 June 13, 2009 Quote Libertarian Socialism? That's a contradiction if I've ever heard one. not so Quote The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used in order to evade the French ban on anarchist publications. In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms. However, the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States. As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialismstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #110 June 13, 2009 QuoteLibertarian Socialism? That's a contradiction if I've ever heard one. Also has nothing to do with true libertarianism, but I guess that little detail isn't too important to you. Dreamdancer won't actually discuss anything. He just posts links to other sites, with occasional parenthetical fragments.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #111 June 14, 2009 i flirted with libertarianism a while back - but it's not a real political philosophy/ideology - it's a made-up political construct like the scientologists are a made-up religous construct.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #112 June 17, 2009 QuoteAs the American Medical Association begins its annual convention in Chicago, we want to take this opportunity to make it clear to the American public, to the media, and to the president and members of Congress, that the AMA does not represent us. It is a common misconception that this organization speaks on behalf of most American physicians but that is a misconception with very serious consequences at such a critical time in the health care reform debate. So long as the public, the media and our elected officials lump all physicians together as “the AMA,” then we are guilty by association of a failure of our Hippocratic oath to “first, do no harm.” In fact, the AMA represents less than one-third of America’s physicians, and half of those are retired. In fact, the American Medical Student Association endorses universal health care reform. The AMA’s longstanding opposition to every effort to change health care financing, including Medicare in the 1960s, has resulted in decades of needless and countless morbidity and mortality. Sixty people die every day in this country simply for lack of access to health care. And instead of being an advocate for the only solution that accomplishes the goals of universal coverage and fiscal viability, the single-payer option, the AMA continues to be primarily a trade association looking out for the financial interests of its members. But who, then, is looking out for the interests of patients? Certainly not Congress and the president. If that were so, the United States would long ago have relieved itself of the dubious distinction of being the only developed country in the world that does not have a universal system of health care. No, the evidence is clear that our Congress and our president are looking out for themselves and continuing the tradition of pay-to-play politics. How else would a reasonable person explain the fact that our elected officials, Democrats and Republicans combined, have accepted $12 million in campaign contributions since 1998 from the American Medical Association? http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/16-11stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #113 June 17, 2009 What's wrong - get banned from alternatereality.net for plagarizing them?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #114 June 17, 2009 how's the libertarian revolution coming along?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
