Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (6325)	12/15/2000 12:11:43 AM
From: moosebeary	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

"Anachism and Libertarianism are not aligned" Sorry Barb, but they are closely alligned. Not the same, but not that far apart. And I showed you how. You just make statements with no facts to back them up, nor do you point to any facts that disprove my facts. So I guess you know where that leaves us. <ggg> Best Regards, Moose

To: Mama Bear who wrote (6325)	12/15/2000 11:45:57 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

"the Libertarian Party believes in less govt than the Constitution allows. " The above statement is simply untrue. It is you who needs to get acquainted with the facts. I usually agree with you, MB, but here no. It's the word allows. If you assume, because the Supreme Court says it's so, that the Constitution allows all the government today, then the LP DOES believe in less govt. than the Constitution allows. What I think you meant was that the LP does NOT believe in less government than the Constitution, responsibly read, anticipats and provides for. That the LP believes in Constitutional government as it was designed, not as it has presently been distorted. The last straw came for me in a case where the USSC found that the federal government could, under the powers of the Commerce Clause, regulate how much wheat a farmer could grow for his own family's consumption. The court reasoned that by growing and eating his own wheat farmer 1 was preventing a farmer 2 somewhere else from selling his wheat to farmer 1, and that if people all over the country grew wheat for their own consumption it would damage the interstate wheat market. So it was within the Fed. Govt's constitutional power to say farmer 1 couldn't grow wheat for his own family to eat. By the same case, the fed government can put every backyard garden in the country out of business if they want to because these backyard markets distort the interstate commerce in food. That case did it for me. It was then that I realized our government's power grab had gotten way, way out of control. But since according to the Courts the constitutions allows this, but the LP clearly would say NO government interference in what a family wants to grow in its own backyard for its own consumption, the statement made was literally true.