Limits of State Power
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 2 of 36
I would eliminate the whole copyright and patent thing. The peeps who made the most money offa discoveries weren't the peeps who made the actual discoveries. So naturally the DMCA goes into the crapper. 
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not sure what the ninth does.
Ahhh, well to limited government fans, the ninth is the most important (and sadly, the most neglected). It was added as a shout out for freedom in general and specifically to assuage concerns of some that a list of protected rights would dilute the purpose of the constitution. In their view, since the constitution was written as an exclusive list of the things government was allowed to do, a list of protected rights was redundant. If the constitution didn't say government could pass laws to limit speech, then it couldn't do it - no "freedom of speech" stipulation was necessary.
They were concerned first, that listing some rights to be protected would imply that others were not. Seconded, they worried that the idea of freedom embodied in the constitution would become identified with the Bill of Rights instead - and that the more important aspect of limited government would be neglected. I'm not sure they were right on the first point, but they were dead-on with the second. It's pretty much exactly what's happened.
Here's a pretty good write-up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Cons
titution
Anyway, it sounds like you're saying you would have a list of specific freedoms to protect, but that you don't subscribe to the founderss idea of limiting government power as a goal. Sound right?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think so, except that ... I also agree with the Ninth being a good "catchall" for things that haven't been thought of yet, or cases which have yet to be adjudicated. For example, the whole concept of internet freedom would never have come up before, nor would the capacity of snooping on millions of citizens en masse ever have been envisioned. But I think, more importantly, I would make those rights apply to everyone in all circumstances. So, for example, a business could not snoop into your private life nor prevent you from forming a worker's association, for example- just as you as a citizen do not have the right to snoop in your neighbor.
Also, I think there is a difference between limiting "government" power and limiting FEDERAL government power. That was part of the slavery debate. Do States have a right to limit your Bill of Rights freedoms? Do cities? Do corporations?
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Government should not be representative at all, especially now. I can vote for or against initiatives, I don't need someone to pretend to 'represent' me.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
no limits - pure majority rules?
And government power should be limited to zero monetary punishments (except in reparations cases)- they can be too hard on common folk while meaning nothing at all to money peeps.
The state should have no right to kill peeps.
The state should have no right to wage war without a direct mandate from its citizens.
Basically, I'd set all manner of limitations on government power.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'd prefer a list of what's NOT protected, and go from there.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Anyway, it sounds like you're saying you would have a list of specific freedoms to protect
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And you will never see it.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I don't recall socialism or socialists ever setting out any concept of clear limits on government power.
The reason our libertarian founders framed our constitution so specifically was to confound future efforts by oligarchs and ideologues to twist or bend the rights of humanity for reasons not serving the human condition. The bill of rights was really a list that says nothing more than: "These rights should be implied in the foundational document, but we know future generations will attempt to pervert the intent of that document, so this list makes it plain as plain can be. All we can do now is pray we did enough." And yet even with so much care taken by those men 220 years ago, ideologues are able to twist words. Example: text in Amendment #2 reads "shall not be infringed" yet somehow the meaning those words has evolved over time.
Socialists and Fascists share one trait in common: Each seeks to control your liberty. Fascists want to seize control of and limit personal freedoms. Socialists make grabs at your economic freedoms. But never lose sight of the solid fact that the intent of both is the same: to control of the citizenary through "legalized" aggression. Fascists on the right would like nothing more than to criminilize everything that doesn't fit a perfect moral code, the ultimate goal of which is to promote a society where people must walk a narrow line of obedience. Socialists seek control in a radically different way: by robbing the initative of the citizenary to pursue achievement and then slowly place them into economic positions where they must stand in a line for a handout. The summary---
Fascist goal: When the people are reduced to zealots, they are controlled
Socialist goal: When the people are reduced to beggars, they are controlled.
We libertarians are left in the center defending ourselves on 2 fronts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Government should not be representative at all, especially now. I can vote for or against initiatives, I don't need someone to pretend to 'represent' me.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
no limits - pure majority rules?
Might wanna think that one through a bit more. Unless you wanna spend the rest of your days just voting.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I think we should start out with: what rights does a population need in order to effectively represent themselves in government, business, information flow, ethics, and armed forces?
What other types of power have been centralized in the past? How can we prevent power from being concentrated? It's not just GOVERNMENT power I'm concerned about... and if that is all that anyone focuses on I think they got blinders on.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As a Libertarian of sorts myself, I'd put it like this:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Fascist goal: When the people are reduced to zealots, they are controlled
Socialist goal: When the people are reduced to beggars, they are controled.
Fascist goal: When the people are reduced to fearful cogs, they are controlled.
Socialist goal: When the people are reduced to lowly equals, they are controlled.
But either way, it boils down to control. Reality lies somewhere in between & outside of those models.
Excess within control. Liberty without elitist-mandated exceptions. Justice without prejudice. Fairness for one and for all through the elimination of 'legalese.'
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym,
Before we move on, I'm still not sure I have a clear picture of your idea limits other than the Bill of Rights and "some other stuff". With the limited government approach, it's pretty easy to say what government can't do - ie anything not in the constitution.
But with your approach it's not clear to me how we know. It seems, in that case, that we'd need something like the Bill of Rights that essentially listed all protected rights. Is there a way to at least characterize the things that would be off-limits to government?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME