[Radar]

Is strict constitutionalism "better" when it encourages things like prohibition to be written into the national document?

Strict Constitutionalism doesn't allow the government to exceed its legitimate authority by prohibiting what people do or don't choose to consume. Strict Constitutionalism never includes using the Constitution to limit rights, only to limit the powers of government.

I hope for your own safety, and, most especially for the safety of others, that you are locked up quickly.

I hope for the safety of my country idiots like you are sent packing to socialist countries where your twisted views will be more accepted.

One question arises. Is anyone here a judge or assciated with the judiciary in any way?

One does not need to be a judge to make a cursory judgment of the Constitutionality of a given law and one does not need to wait for judicial review before acting on that determination. If a law is unconstitutional in its face, we are not required to abide by it even if a judge has not reviewed it. For instance if Congress said that all people over the age of 50 must be put to death because they were too much of a burden on the economy. One would not have to wait for a review of the law before telling Congress to screw off.

First of all, a right not to be subject to income tax is not in the goddamn bill of huamn rights, we're not talking about fucking genocide here, it's tax.

Yes we are talking about human rights. In fact we're talking about the most sacred of human rights....self-ownership. I own myself. I own my life, mind, body, and labor. Nobody else has any claim to these. Not even the combined population of earth. And because I own all of these things outright and nobody else has a claim to them, I also own the fruits of my labor totally and completely and nobody else has any valid claim to them. When government takes the fruits of my labor, they are turning me into a slave. It's not like slavery or theft, it IS slavery and theft. You have still failed to prove how armed robbery and slavery are different. And you will always fail because they are the same thing. It doesn't matter if 1 person, 10 people, or 250 million people who call themselves “government” rob you; it's still robbery. And those people have no legitimate claim to the fruits of another persons labor no matter how many vote on it.

'The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success.' He added: 'I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.' (FT, 7 June 2003).

Inflation is caused by an increase in the quantity of money and by NOTHING...I REPEAT.....N-O-T-H-I-N-G ELSE!!! If Mr. Friedman is saying the target has not been a success, it only means that he has not been successful in convincing people, not that he was incorrect about the relationship.

Adovacting doing it with a means you clearly think YOUR view is more important than everyone else's, thus really, you have no right to call yourself someone that beleives in a democratic state.

MY opinion IS more important than those of everyone else when it comes to MY property. NOBODY has any claim to what I've earned but me. Not you, not a hundred of you, not a hundred million of you. And you're correct. I do not advocate a democracy. I am happy the U.S.A. is not a democracy. It is a democratic republic where the rights of individuals are more important than the desires of millions.

The people have no right to vote on the color of your hair, whether you will procreate, or how much of your money they are entitled to. If they put it on a ballot, they are violating their limited authority.

Government may not do anything that we as individuals don't have the right to do without government. If you are on an island with no government and you grow your own vegetables, and someone comes over and eats those vegetables without your permission, they have stolen from you. You did the work to cultivate them and they at them. They were not entitled to those vegetables regardless of how hungry they are and you are not entitled to go to their home and take what they have earned through their labor either. Because you are not entitled to take the fruits of another person's labor without their permission, what makes you think you can give this power to the government?

The limited powers of government are derived from the consent of the individuals who grant it power. As an individual you have no claim to the fruits of another persons labor therefore neither do 10 people, or 100 people, or 100 million people. You can't give a power to government that you do not have in the first place.