h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Iluvatar said: 'We should have 50 states with all different beliefs and laws with the federal gov. staying away.'

Well, maybe that's what you would like, but that's not actually what your Constitution lays out. From the beginning there were powers granted to the Federal government over the state legislatures. And, I'm not sure I understand your vision of 'United' States without a foundation of laws which govern all.







Iago remarked that warner seemed to have implied that he had yikesed someone before. For the record, I'm pretty sure he's yikesed me on at least one occasion.

>'We should have 50 states with all different beliefs and laws with the federal gov. staying away.'<

We had that (and it were some 80 independent nations) in what is nowadays Germany. Didn´t work.

We still have it. It's called Earth.

RF

...I make no claims as to whether it works or not.

RF

>>Well, maybe that's what you would like, but that's not actually what your Constitution lays out. From the beginning there were powers granted to the Federal government over the state legislatures. And, I'm not sure I understand your vision of 'United' States without a foundation of laws which govern all<< (Anhaga)

I'm curious; Iluvatar - would you class your self as a libertarian?

Yes, Iago, warner did yikes me. Here it is: F19585?thread=Yes, Iago, warner did yikes me. Here it is: F19585?Thread=4005961&post=76949080 post 15592 (reinstated without change)

I'm curious, Iluvatar: where would you say your present President was born?

"Libertarian" is a misnomer. "Propertarian" is more accurate - everything else (including liberty, justice, and democracy) is subservient to absolute rights to property regardless of the consequences for - or the interests of - others. And it seems that "property" includes children.

"Well, maybe that's what you would like, but that's not actually what your Constitution lays out. From the beginning there were powers granted to the Federal government over the state legislatures."

"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."

If the constitution doesn't say they can do it, they can't. And if it doesn't say the states can't, they can.

Hmmm, is it the same as in Germany? Federal rule overrides State rule. Withinn these limits, rule like your local voters want.

"Iluvatar - would you class your self as a libertarian?"

Yes, I would.

"I'm curious, Iluvatar: where would you say your present President was born?"

Hawaii

Yes, Iluvatar. Very good. The exact passage I was referring to: powers were granted to the Federal government over the state legislatures. Certainly not the 'ideal' you mentioned of fifty states doing whatever they want and the federal government staying out. You've just made my point against yourself.

Iluvatar. 'Hawaii' is a relief.

"powers were granted to the Federal government over the state legislatures"

...How does this constitute powers granted by the constitution? I could swear you said "state legislators".

Why is that a relief? For all I know it could possibly be some huge conspiracy, but most likely not, and it can't be proven anyway. So I say Hawaii. And no, I don't believe our government planned 9/11 either...

>>"Iluvatar - would you class your self as a libertarian?"

Yes, I would.<<


Thank you.

Simple question, straight answer.

I ask because libertarians (if you'll excuse the sweeping generalisation) seems to be getting quite vexed at the moment about the vaccinations, specifically for swine flu, but anti-vaccination sentiments seem to have been growing in my highly unscientific survey of the news coming out of America*, and it seems to follow that same pattern of an intense dislike for any kind of state involvement in something as for instance both widespread and potentially lethal as a flu pandemic.

I was wondering does your distaste for government bound by international laws extend to a view of vaccinations?


----------------------


*For example, Jenny Mcarthy and Jim Carry were both recently on Larry King, shipping some nonsense about autism and anti-vaccination agenda. (They've also been featured in the Huffington post)

On Youtube Thunderf00t posted this video criticising Ron Paul for a dunderheaded approach to the threat of Pandemics, which name-checks the libertarian / free market criticism to vaccination manufacture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9kMkJeia1o

And on the 9th October just Bill Maher demonstrating a jaw dragging ignorance and a (frankly dangerous) distrust of vaccination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB5DLf1Qt78

your questions answered in reverse order, Iluvatar:

it's a relief because I dreaded that you might be one of those 'birther' loonies.

as well as granting all unstated powers to the states, the Constitution grants certain limited powers to the federal government. Surely you acknowledge that the Constitution grants powers to the federal government? What's this bit mean?

'The Congress shall have the power 1. to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States: 2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States: 3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes: 4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States: 5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures: 6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States: 7. To establish post-offices and post-roads: 8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries: 9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court: 10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations: 11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures 12. on land and water: 13. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years: 14. To provide and maintain a navy: 15. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces: 16. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions: 17. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress: 18. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And, 19. 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.'

Now, if I understand you correctly, you don't want your federal government mucking about in your life, it should be your state government that does that, am I right? Why stop at the state government? Wouldn't you rather have had your Constitution invest the powers it gave to the states to each individual municipality? Or maybe it should be right down to a neighborhood, a street, an apartment building? Or, do you really want there to be no government at all?

Just after I hit 'Post Message' I hit my Stumble! button and got this: http://www.cagle.com/working/090904/bors.jpg

"Now, if I understand you correctly, you don't want your federal government mucking about in your life, it should be your state government that does that, am I right? Why stop at the state government? Wouldn't you rather have had your Constitution invest the powers it gave to the states to each individual municipality? Or maybe it should be right down to a neighborhood, a street, an apartment building? Or, do you really want there to be no government at all?"

Well obviously it could get smaller and smaller, down to the street & individual. I believe this is of course ideal. I think obviously groups would arise out of this, but they should be optional, like joining a club.

I may or may not be ok with taxing for national defence, as this isn't something that can be easily opted out of. By being within the borders, we are recieving the service of the military's protection. I don't agree with all the powers that the constitution gives the federal government. For instance, I think currency could easily be regulated by private businesses. Then maybe there would be more places to turn when one of them starts ruining their currency. Then taxing for the use of currency could just be a payment for a optional service. Maybe people would use that currency which doesn't charge as much.