Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 52 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions (Read 6514 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42745
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #60 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:05am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 9:14am:
Proving Opposition is an idiot yet again for claiming the town drunk who clearly supports aggression is his example I'm wrong that no one on the site believes in NAP.  That while he argues the town drunk doesn't believe in NAP as if no one can connect ideas across threads
Sure, takings by eminent domain are aggression, but it's aggression authorized by the Constitution when it is used for national defense... But that doesn't apply to Ft. Sumter since nobody owned the sandbar it was built on. Smiley I could be wrong. Maybe the state of SC claimed the sandbar... Is eminent domain compensation required when the federal government takes land from a state? IDK. If it is, SC probably demanded payment for the sandbar at fair market value.

If your argument is that the Constitution violates the NAP and must be opposed on libertarian grounds, you are arguing for anarchy and against the right of people to form governments.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5746
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #61 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:14am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 8:57am:
That the task of national defense assigned to the federal government required/requires that it defend coastal waters because they are U.S. coastal waters.

The Constitution gives the federal government authority to use the power of eminent domain to secure land for military bases. Once they do that, the land becomes U.S. land.


The phrases, "national defense," and "military bases," do not appear in the constitution.  Interestingly, since this questions you are refusing to answer comes from a thread about the War of Northern Aggression, this phrase does appear in the U.S. Constitution:

United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.

I await your tortured logic as you explain how invading thirteen states protected them from invasion.

BTW, the question you are not answering is whether the constitution must be interpreted very literally by each branch of government or whether it is up to the USSC to tell us what it means.
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42745
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #62 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:19am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:14am:
The phrases, "national defense," and "military bases," do not appear in the constitution. 
There is authorization for a navy, so naval bases are needed. Forts to protect naval bases and naval bases themselves are necessary and proper under the authorization of a navy, so they are authorized.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5746
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #63 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:21am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:05am:
If your argument is that the Constitution violates the NAP and must be opposed on libertarian grounds, you are arguing for anarchy and against the right of people to form governments.


Jeff, your constantly accusing anyone who disagrees with you of anarchy does little to further intelligent debate.

Kaz disagrees with one part of the U.S. Constitution, I've never heard him advocate for anarchy.  The founders could have formed a government without including aggression such as slavery and eminent domain.  Your insistence that opposing slavery in the constitution is the same as advocating anarchy is absurd.


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42745
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #64 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:25am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:14am:
I await your tortured logic as you explain how invading thirteen states protected them from invasion.


They were in rebellion. Probably we should have let them go. They might have allied themselves with the Empire of Mexico, or even become a part of it- except for the fact that Mexico outlawed slavery... Probably the CSA could have taken over the Empire of Mexico and re-instituted slavery there...

I'm interested in your response to the idea that secession by any state requires the agreement of the people of the United States.

Agreement of the people of the United States was required to admit a state (after the union was created), should it not then be required to allow a state to leave?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5746
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #65 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 11:41am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:25am:
They were in rebellion. Probably we should have let them go.


Yes, definitely so if the United States wanted to follow its own constitution.

Quote:
They might have allied themselves with the Empire of Mexico, or even become a part of it- except for the fact that Mexico outlawed slavery... Probably the CSA could have taken over the Empire of Mexico and re-instituted slavery there...


Who know what might have happened?


Quote:
I'm interested in your response to the idea that secession by any state requires the agreement of the people of the United States.


It's a tyrannical idea, not found in the constitution.

Quote:
Agreement of the people of the United States was required to admit a state (after the union was created),


Absolutely correct:

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

    New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.


Quote:
should it not then be required to allow a state to leave?


If the constitution said that. 

Does it?

  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5746
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #66 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 12:00pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:19am:
There is authorization for a navy, so naval bases are needed. Forts to protect naval bases and naval bases themselves are necessary and proper under the authorization of a navy, so they are authorized.


This is your perpetual slippery slope argument.  The people have a right to form a government.  Governments need taxes, therefore they have a right to empower the government to tax, therefore if the people agree that taxes should be levied to pay for public schools, an individual's property is no longer his property and it can be demanded from him and if he refuses, he can be thrown in jail and his property auctioned off because, remember?  The people have a right to form a government.

But, about the Navy and Navy bases, you are correct.  The constitution does indeed authorize a Navy and also eminent domain to take away a person's dock after he built it, to be the Navy base and to take away his offices to be the Base office and to take away his house to be the Commander's house and to take away his wife's boarding house to be the officer's quarters and officer's club.  Doesn't make it right, but the constitution sure authorizes it.

It does NOT authorize the United States to use force to prevent states from leaving it.  Why can I admit you are right, but you find yourself unable to admit when I am right.

If South Carolina had still been part of the Union when it fired on Fort Sumpter, you would have a very valid point.  But South Carolina had voluntarily left the Union the same as it had voluntarily joined it.


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7988
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #67 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 12:30pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 12:00pm:
Why can I admit you are right, but you find yourself unable to admit when I am right


Both of you have the inability to admit when you're wrong
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5746
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #68 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 1:09pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 12:30pm:
Both of you have the inability to admit when you're wrong


You are so right about that!

  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7988
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #69 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 1:11pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 1:09pm:
You are so right about that!



Admitting the concept that you can be wrong doesn't contradict what I said.  You can't admit you are wrong at the time you are wrong.  No one says they can't be wrong.  Including people like you and Jeff who never admit that you are
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 52
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy