Why don't Liberals think that government should live according to their means?

The rights the states currently have are based on the last seven decades of jurisprudence and a poor interpretation/understanding of the Commerce Clause. and not on the original intent of the framers.

Take Obamacare for example.

In U.S. v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun Free School Zone Act in part because the statute did not contain a “jurisdictional element” that would ensure “through case-by-case inquiry” that the activity in question impacts interstate commerce. This is the key problem with the individual mandate.

To the extent that the Substantial Effects doctrine provides such a jurisdictional element, it does so through examining an activity and gauging its (aggregate) impact on interstate commerce. If there’s no activity, it’s hard to see how Congress can prove jurisdictional authority on a “case-by-case” basis.

The Obama Administration argues that the activity/inactivity distinction is irrelevant because the individual mandate is actually regulating an affirmative action. They contend that the Commerce Clause contains no “temporal” restriction, so Congress can just as easily regulate economic activity prior to the point of market entry.

This is pretty abstract argument, to say the least. The Supreme Court has never addressed this issue of “temporality” with regard to the Commerce Clause, so it’s ridiculous to claim that the precedent set in Wickard v. Filburn proves the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

But even if you presume that Congress has the ability to regulate your future self, the Obama Administration’s argument still rets on an ecological fallacy. The fact that virtually all Americans will use the health care system doesn’t mean any individual will use the health care system—at least not in the foreseeable future. It’s certainly not clear that all Americans will use the health care system within the next year, which is the relevant period for insurance coverage.

Also, consider the Dodd Frank Act, specifically the regulation of non-bank financial institutions. These institutions receive no federal guarantee (unlike banks) and so there so no federal nexus and they do not fall into interstate commerce.

As for the benefits, I already outlined them in a previous post.

 

So you believe that it is right to force one state to pay another one's bills? what sense does that even make? It is interesting how most people ignore some simple facts: Western Europe did not need a centralized government to become developed after WW2. Now let's look at nations with population size similar (i.e. have a big population) to the one that the US has that did have centralized government since then or long before.

China: 3rd world country, lots of corruption and oppression, they also love to try and impress the west with worthless things, like the biggest empty shopping mall. USSR: dismantled + lots of deaths while it last. Russia: basically a 3rd world country. India....3rd world country + lots of corruption.

Last, I would like to detail a bit more the politics and economy where I live (Brazil): 3rd world country, states and cities keep fighting over resourses at a political level, unable to do well without them, resourses are channeled to politics. rapmpant corruption everywhere, government picks winners and loosers. It also decides where investment goes and where it doesn't (result of that for over 200 years: 3rd world nation). People are so (dependent on/ oppressed by) government that they cannot even imagine improvement in their lives without increasing its size. No fast development is achieved compared to smaller nations that had similar conditions at some point in the recent past, specially those that adopted more libertarian government, like Estonia or Singapore.

Statists are always butthurt when they are criticized because they think they know everything, so they never recognize their own failures. They are also never the ones to pay for their own mistakes, even worse, they have access to a huge pool of resourses, so they can make a huge mistakes without ever suffering proportionally to them.

 

What does comparing the US to USSR and Brazil have to do with collective use of resources and preventing states from using their resources to create an unfair advantage for other states? Why do you want this competition between states when it's to everyone's advantage that we share our resources and compete against other countries? You make absolutely no sense at all.

 

Once again you are completely dismissing the alternative. You act as if Obamacare took something that was working great and ruined it. Healthcare has been becoming a bigger and bigger burden on American families for decades. Either we can continue letting it fester or we can do something about it. Levying some sort of federal tax across the board seems like the most logical idea there is, but I guess Austrian's and conservatives aren't huge fans of logic. So because of their inherent distrust of Govt they rather let things that are failing continue to fail than to find a solution that works. Very good ideology you got going on, lol.

 

Not to digress, but previously you stated that Austrian economics and conservatism is all "based on philosophy" (philosophy by definition is the study of reality and knowledge through logical reasoning) and now you claim that Austrians and conservatives "aren't huge fans of logic." Do you ever get tired of embarassing yourself?

I never once claimed that our previous system of health care was good in any way. The government was heavily involved in that too. However, my previous post was value-neutral. I was simply outlining the unconstitutionality of specific federal regulations based on the original intent of the Commerce Clause. Despite your irrational claims to the contrary, we are still governed by the rule of law. We have a Constitution for a reason. There is more to consider when making policy than your subjective claims of "what is best for the country."

And I'm not necessarily against federal taxation. That is one of the Congress' enumerated powers.

 

Has it occurred to you that since at least 75% of abortions are done by liberals, and that 75% of liberal parented children grow up to be liberals, that abortion is killing an awfully large number of potential liberals/Democrat voters?

Why would liberals let illegal immigrants in the country in order to increase the number of Democrat voters, and use the giving of welfare to sway minorities to vote Democrat, yet turn around and kill off so many potentially liberal babies?

Makes no sense. Don't they care about winning elections at all?




Yea, yea, I know. The President is Democratic along with the Senate, and Obama will win re-election, yea, sure, sure...

 

I really do not care what the original intent of the Commerce Clause was. I simply care about reality and solutions to fix problems. When people are suffering from unaffordable healthcare that we can make affordable through different measures, but we aren't doing so because they told us we couldn't in the 18th century, I think it's ridiculous. We live in our own time and we are allowed to make our own decisions with out having to worry about some centuries old ideology.

And I do not see any definition of philosophy that includes the phrase "through logical reasoning". So maybe it is you who is embarrassing yourself. But you are an Austrian, so it's really not that hard. Just saying "I'm an Austrian" is embarrassing enough.

 

We have a system where you could do that. Get 2/3 of the house 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the states to agree with you and its done. Oh wait they wouldn't agree with you so you would rather force it down their throat.

 

"Philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value)." The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 666

the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy

Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophy

You can't possibly be this stupid. Am I just being trolled? You seem to be associating "logical argument" with "accurate conclusion." You are aware that an argument can be logically sound and still come to the wrong conclusion if it follows from a false premise? Have you ever stepped foot inside of a college?

Of course you don't care about the Constitution. It was written precisely to limit the powers of government to undertake ridiculous ventures like the ones you are advocating. The absurdity of the claim that the government can determine an optimal growth rate for an entire economy (your exact words from the other thread) is obvious to anyone with more than a couple of functioning brain cells. And this is exactly the mindset upon which you build your edifice of nonsense.

I could easily develop an algorithm and use inputs based on empirical data, to come to the "conclusion" that anyone who doesn't contribute [or can't contribute] to the increase of the overall well-being of society should be exterminated - people such as the mentally handicapped, the homeless, the physically incapacitated, the permanently ill, etc. This wouldn't be a stretch, given that these people are a net loss for society. No one in their right mind would support such an action. This is an implicit recognition that, as I stated previously, there are other considerations to public policy than overall well-being based on quantitative analysis or some metric.

 

I appreciate it my be hard for the partisan mind to fathom, but there are some things more important than winning the election.

 

I appreciate it my be hard for the partisan mind to fathom, but there are some things more important than winning the election.

 

All you do is veer off in to definitions and textbook jargon that has nothing to do with anything of substance. Never do you actually provide any real world solutions to real world problems. I'm glad you paid attention to useless stuff in college. I slept through my philosophy course because it was so useless and boring. To me the Austrian's approach to economics through some philosophically driven bullchit backed by zero empirical evidence or any attempt at quantitative analysis is illogical.

 

All paper money is related to the ame one thing, the price of gold.

Print more paper money and the citizens in that nation will need to pay more for one ounce of Gold.

 

That's called inflation.

 

Depends on the demand for gold.

 

Hey bimbo, I only "veer off in to definitions" when it is painfully obvious that you have no idea of the meaning of the terms that you use, even after they are explained to you. Given your severe learning disability, I do not believe for one second that you graduated from college (I'm starting to wonder if you even attended at all.)

Now to address your claims. Austrians certainly aren't opposed to using algebra or arithmetic in their analysis (in fact, I already explained to you that some of them even utilize the quantity theory of money, an equation with which you are obsessed.) So presumably, you are referring to the more advanced quantitative analysis. If that is the case, provide an argument for why it is illogical not to utilize stochastic calculus, measure theoretic probability theory, partial differential equations, nonlinear difference equations, etc., in economics. Additionally, describe how these methods improve our understanding of economics.

 

Yes, you are being trolled. He posts totally irrational things to see how far he can get someone to take his argument seriously.

 

Why don't you ask President Obama? I'm for drug legalization. But the drugs don't have anything to do with this thread topic anyway. You aren't one of those hemp guys are you?

 

It's called the Rowe Effect (yes, you can Google it). Apparently there is some validity to it since the number of people in polling who oppose abortion has been steadily increasing. One assumes because the pro-abortion mommies are... aborting.

 

I still have absolutely no clue what you are trying to prove or what point you are making. I told you this is how the conversation would go from the beginning. You guys don't ever articulate what it is you are trying to say and how it applies to the real world. Just tons of cryptic philosophical bullchit. That's the Austrian way. Now when you grow up and can actually make a coherent argument and tell me what it is you are actually arguing about and why, let me know. Until then, I enjoyed the feeling of being a Freshman in college again! Thanks!

 

The point is about government living within its "means". If we can afford a War on Drugs it must not be real times for lowering Taxes.

If it is really, real times of lowering Taxes and therefor not real times of War; then we should not be able to afford a War on Drugs.

Does anyone know why even our current president, who has a stake-hold regarding this social dilemma merely due to part of his constituency, is not in favor of bearing true witness to our laws and faithfully executing the power to provide for the general welfare instead providing for forms of Prohibition, even after the repeal of that only delegated power with the Twenty-First Amendment to our federal Constitution?

 

Some people claim to believe in a Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear Arms.

 

Bimbo, I asked you to support the claim that "lack of quantitative analysis in economics is illogical."

Why do you believe it is illogical? Do you have a reason for believing this, or do you believe it "just cause?"

I gave you an order. Get to it.

 

Is our current understanding of economics adequate to the task? Our elected representatives are already fond of micromanaging our tax codes while allegedly, not providing for the specific welfare of (or pandering) to some persons of wealth.

In my opinion, we should be able to free-ride on any civil privileges and immunities establish by persons of wealth in our republic.

 

The stuff you talk about is useless. "Why do I believe it is illogical"? That's such a broad question that has absolutely no relevance to any real world economics. Who cares if I believe it is illogical or not. That is my subjective opinion. And this is why I believe it's illogical. Whenever you argue economics with Austrian's you get in to these stupid arguments about beliefs and philosophy. It is why no one takes you guys seriously. Just be a man, make a claim and back it up with facts. Instead of just getting in worthless arguments about feelings and beliefs.

Dealing with Austrian's is like dealing with chicks.