Libertarianism?

[makingmusic476]

"File Not Found"

What a convincing argument. :P

Edit: Okay, I've been reading through this, and often they seem to be arguing semantics rather than actual points, particularly point number 2.   

The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the constitution.

Often this is presented as "The US wouldn't be so bad if the government followed the Constitution."

"Plain meaning" is a matter of opinion. A plain meaning one century can well be reversed in another, depending on popular usage, historical context, etc. Well intentioned people can disagree on "plain meaning" endlessly, as we see in any non-unanimous court decision. For practical purposes, the meaning MUST be decided one way or another.

Libertarian claims of "plain meaning" are often clearly shaped by their beliefs. Where this occurs, it's pretty obvious that their claims to "plain meaning" are not "common sense".

They've never actually addressed the ways in which libertarians accuse the US Government of abusing the constitution. They've skirted around the issues by noting the obvious fact that different people interpret things in different ways.

The main issue stems from two clauses in the Constitution, the first found at the end of Article I, Section 8:

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.

The second is the Tenth Amendment, which was written with the intent to clarify the above clause, and to set general limits on the federal government as a whole whole:

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.

Basically what this second clause means is that if the Constitution explicitly says the Federal government can do something, than it can do it, but if the Constitution does not explicitly say it can do something, than it can't.  Those things that the government can't do are relegated to the states. 

The first clause, however, does extend certain powers to the federal government that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution.  It states that the government can enact laws necessary and proper to fulfill it's other powers provided by the Constitution. 

However, many of the laws enacted by the Congress today have nothing to do with the powers granted to it by other sections of the constitution, and they are issues that should be relegated to the States.  And of the ones that are intended to help execute their duties, many are neither necessary nor proper. This is what we mean when we say that the federal government is abusing the constitution.

 

Now, I've only been skimming most of this as I'm pretty tired (I'll probably go more in-depth tomorrow), but at point 22 I saw this:

Yes, the Federal government had a much lighter hand then. However, state and local governments had a much greater influence. There is not one class of positive duty or obligation in the US today that did not exist 200 years ago at state or federal level.

How much more obvious can you get?  And that's one of the main points that Libertarians argue, that the Federal government is too large, and things should be left up to the State and Local governments.  States' Rights, etc. 

We don't necessarily want the government to just disappear, we just want many of the federal government's powers to be relegated to the State and Local levels, as they should be, so that individual communities can decide for themselves how to live, rather than the nation as a whole.