The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

[DanaC]

lol actually, I was just this minute thinking that the word fuck* has found its way into quite a few of my posts the last few days :P

[TheMercenary]

[Radar]

I have never denied that all men and women are created equally, and that freedom is for all people. Our founding fathers most certainly didn't want us to become involved in entangling alliances, or to use the U.S. military to win freedom for any nation but our own. This is not an isolationist or xenophobic policy. Claiming it to be is merely a crutch for those who can't defend their own position...most likely because there is no valid defense for war mongering.

I'd be willing to bet that I can provide far more examples of our founders being against the insane and idiotic foreign policy supported by non-libertarians like UG than he can find to the contrary. But since he wants to quote other presidents, I can include them too.

Let's see what people far more intelligent than UG have to say on the matter.

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

"Force always attracts men of low morality."

-Albert Einstein

Originally Posted by Ayn Rand

"Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives."

-Ayn Rand

Originally Posted by Benjamin Disraeli

"War is never a solution; it is an aggravation."

-Benjamin Disraeli

Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin

"There never was a good war or a bad peace."

-Benjamin Franklin

Originally Posted by Banjamin Harrison

"We Americans have no commission from God to police the world."

-Benjamin Harrison

Originally Posted by Clarence Darrow

"True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else."

-Clarence Darrow

Originally Posted by Congressman Ron Paul

"Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms."

-Congressman Ron Paul

Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive."

-C. S. Lewis

Originally Posted by Dale Turner

"Today the real test of America's power and wisdom is not our capacity to make war but our capacity to prevent it."

-Dale Turner

Originally Posted by David Friedman

"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations."

-David Friedman

Originally Posted by David L. Wilson

"War creates peace like hate creates love."

-David L. Wilson

Originally Posted by Dwight D. Eisenhower

"War settles nothing."

-Dwight D. Eisenhower

Originally Posted by Edward M. Kennedy

"Violence is an admission that one's ideas and goals cannot prevail on their own merits."

-Edward M. Kennedy

Originally Posted by General Smedley Butler

"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights."

-General Smedley Butler

Originally Posted by General Vo Nguyen Giap

"Any forces that would impose their will on other nations will certainly face defeat."

-General Vo Nguyen Giap (Vietnam)

Originally Posted by George Orwell

"Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

-George Orwell

Originally Posted by G.K. Chesterton

"The only defensible war is a war of defense."

-G. K. Chesterton

Originally Posted by Hermann Hesse

"Every politician in the world is all for revolution, reason, and disarmament--but only in enemy countries, not in his own."

-Hermann Hesse

Originally Posted by H. L. Mencken

"I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone."

-H. L. Mencken

Originally Posted by Issac Asimov

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

-Issac Asimov

Originally Posted by James Madison

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other."

-James Madison

Originally Posted by Jean-Luc Godard

"Killing a man in defense of an idea is not defending an idea; it is killing a man."

-Jean-Luc Godard

Originally Posted by John Adams

"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."

-John Adams

Originally Posted by John Quincy Adams

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all."

-John Quincy Adams

Originally Posted by Justice Louis D. Brandeis

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

-Justice Louis D. Brandeis

Originally Posted by Mahatma Gandhi

"Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood."

-Mahatma Gandhi

Originally Posted by Mahatma Gandhi

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

-Mahatma Gandhi

Originally Posted by Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Nothing good ever comes of violence."

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Originally Posted by Michael Gillespie

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power."

-Michael Gillespie

Originally Posted by Pope John Paul II

"Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men."

-Pope John Paul II

Originally Posted by Congressman Ron Paul

"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."

-Congressman Ron Paul

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

-Thomas Jefferson

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

"An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot."

-Thomas Paine

Originally Posted by Voltaire

"It would be easier to subjugate the entire universe through force than the minds of a single village."

-Voltaire

It seems as though our founders all agree with me that using the U.S. military to start unprovoked wars to "liberate" others is insane...and so do the most influential people who ever lived, including the giants of libertarianism.

[Radar]

Even if none of these falsehoods had come to light, libertarians should always be skeptical of any claims made by politicians.

3. Government doesn't work: The federal government has devastated what was once the best health-care system in history, it is trashing our children's schools, its Drug War has pulverized the inner cities, it has left chaos in its wake in Afghanistan. In fact, you'd be hard put to think of a single government program that fulfilled the rosy promises made for it.

So why would you think the promises of Iraqi freedom and democracy will be fulfilled? This is the same government that's messed up everything else. Just because "national defense" is Constitutionally authorized doesn't mean the government will handle it effectively.

The Defense Department is nothing more than the Post Office in fatigues.

And beating up a third-world country after disarming it isn't something any self-respecting country should put on its résumé.

4. Power will be abused: The President has been given tens of billions of dollars to spend on Iraq as he chooses. Do you assume he'll use it wisely, without a hint of corruption?

The FBI and other law-enforcement agencies have been given enormous new powers to jail people without warrant and hold them without trial or legal counsel. Do you assume they will employ these powers only against America's enemies?

Do you really want to give government one more excuse to expand its size, its power, and its intrusions into your life?

5.Government programs never stand still: Every other government program has turned out to be far more expensive, far more intrusive, and extend into far more areas than proposed originally. Why should this war prove to be an exception?

Do you really think the regime-changers – after tasting the blood of innocents and the praise of the media and the citizenry – will go back to bickering about farm subsidies and school-lunch programs?

Or will they look for more "monsters to destroy" (as John Quincy Adams put it)?

6. Government is politics: Whenever you turn anything over to the government, it ceases to be a financial, medical, commercial, educational, or human-rights matter, and becomes a political issue – to be decided by whoever has the most political influence. And that will never be you or I.

Why should military matters be any different? Should we be surprised that companies like Bechtel and Haliburton have already received hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to rebuild Iraq without competitive bidding?

Did you really think this war would be fought with no regard for political gain or abuse?

7. You don't control the government: You can look at the previous six items and say you would have handled some things differently. But who asked you?

No one.

And no one ever will. You don't make the decisions.

The politicians use your support as endorsements for them to fulfill their objectives, not yours – in their way, not yours.

That's true for health care, education, regulation – and it's true for military matters.

In Sum . . .

Government is force, and libertarians distrust force.

They know it will be abused, they know force won't produce the results promised for it, they know politicians will lie about the exercise of force, they know force will eventually be uncontrollable, they know that power is inevitably abused, and they know that no government program achieves its purpose and then goes quietly into the night.

On every count of libertarian principles, we should demand that the use of force against foreign countries be reserved for response to direct attacks – not to be used for "regime change," not for "democracy-building," not for pre-emptive attacks, not for demonstrations of strength.

Freeing People

The second argument offered by libertarians is that we should do anything we can to free other people from a brutal dictator.

I won't even deal with the fact that most of our knowledge of Hussein's brutality emanates from the U.S. government – hardly the place a libertarian would look for unbiased, authoritative information about anything.

I'll also ignore the point that, while condemning Hussein's brutal dictatorship, the U.S. government is aiding dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, and many other countries. We shouldn't be surprised if we're told someday that we must go to war against those dictatorships, to free the people our tax dollars are helping to enslave today.

Let's deal instead only with the idea that we have a responsibility to free people in other countries.

Is it your responsibility to enter someone's home and beat up the man you believe is abusing his wife?

Is it your responsibility to go into a dangerous section of your city and protect people from drug gangs that engage in drive-by shootings?

You might say the Drug War breeds those gangs and shootings, and thus you're working instead to end the Drug War itself – rather than trying to alleviate the symptoms of it.

Why then wouldn't you be working to end the causes of the profound anti-American sentiment that has swept the globe and provoked terrorist acts – rather than trying to alleviate the symptoms by supporting the attacking of Iraq?


Responsibility

The answer to the question "Is it your responsibility?" is simple: that's for you to decide.

Each of us must choose for himself what he feels responsible for. If you believe you have a duty to help those fighting for Iraqi freedom – perhaps even to go fight yourself – you should be free to make that choice, and no one should get in your way.

But what gives you the right to make that choice for others?

Why should you have the power or moral authority to decide which countries I must free, which countries warrant extracting money from me by force, which dictatorships warrant provoking terrorist attacks that put my life at risk?

And what libertarian would believe that George Bush should have that moral authority – plus the power to compel all of us to obey that authority?

You will face the consequences of your acts and I will face the consequences of mine. But George Bush won't face the consequences of his acts; you and I will. Is that the way it should be according to libertarian principles?

I think not.

And thus there is nothing George Bush can say that will make me believe I should put my faith in him to decide how many innocent Iraqis it's okay to kill, how many countries it's okay to attack and invade, how many Americans it's okay to put at risk, or how many libertarian principles it's okay to violate.

[spudcon]

The Founding Fathers were not Libertarians. Freedom does not equal license.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by spudcon

The Founding Fathers were not Libertarians. Freedom does not equal license.

The founding fathers were indeed libertarians. In fact they were more libertarian than the people running the libertarian party.

[classicman]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[spudcon]

Have to disagree. The founding fathers instituted a Republican Democracy. We elect representatives to govern, thus giving them the power to rule. The animation you showed says we're not allowed to do that, or we're lazy intellectually. Wrong! We are abiding by the Constitution. We don't live in anarchy, Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky notwithstanding.

[Radar]

The founders, much like Ron Paul, myself, and other libertarians instituted a government that derives limited powers from the consent of the governed. Government may only have those powers that we have as individuals, to grant to it. Governmental power may not exceed the rights of even a single individual.

In other words, if I don't have a right to do something, I can't grant that power to government. The animation shown by the ISIL says that we can ask others to defend us and our rights. This is why we elect people. We give them a limited number of powers that are derived from our rights. We say that we will allow the government to create a military to defend all of us, we elect a mayor and entrust him with creating a police force, etc.

The Constitution is a libertarian document, and our government is most certainly not abiding by it. Government was always meant to be very small and to only do a few things for us. It was never meant to be all things to all people. It was never meant to handle things like retirement, healthcare, education, charity, etc.

[TheMercenary]

Oh God, not another dissertation from our resident amateur know it all.

[TheMercenary]

Washington, D.C. City Council Ignoring Supreme Court Ruling
-- Discharge petition filed on gun ban repeal

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Monday, July 28, 2008


In open defiance of the Supreme Court's decision striking down the Washington D.C. gun control law, the City Council passed an "emergency" law that keeps in place almost all of the law that was ruled unconstitutional.

For example, though the Court ruled specifically that the city's ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment, most handguns still cannot be registered because D.C. bureaucrats classify semi-automatic pistols as "machine guns."

Even Dick Heller, who brought the case against Washington's gun ban, was rejected when he tried to register his handgun because any "bottom loading" firearm is a "machine gun"
according to the D.C.
police.

Similarly, while the Court found that "the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a "trigger lock" is unconstitutional, the city kept in place the "lock up your safety" law unless the resident is in immediate danger.

The D.C. Council is thus rendering the Supreme Court victory for gun rights meaningless, while leaving residents defenseless.

Congress needs to repeal the District's gun control law to ensure that the Supreme Court decision is not a hollow victory.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority and responsibility to govern the District. It can simply repeal the District's onerous gun law.

Not surprisingly, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has no intention of allowing the D.C. gun ban repeal legislation to come to the floor, even though it is cosponsored by more than half of the members of Congress.

To free the bill from the Speaker's death grip, Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) has filed a discharge petition to bring the bill directly to the floor. Rep. Souder needs 218 cosigners for the petition to be successful. There are currently 109 signers.

There are not many days left in this legislative session, so it is vital that the discharge petition moves quickly. Please contact your representative and urge him or her to support the repeal of the D.C. gun ban and to sign the Souder discharge petition. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Reps. the pre-written e-mail message below.


----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Representative,

The Washington, D.C. city council is making a mockery of the recent Supreme Court decision supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Though the Court ruled the city's handgun ban unconstitutional, DC is still making it illegal to own most handguns. The Court also ruled that the District's gun lock and gun storage law violates the Constitution, but under the city's new "emergency" gun law, firearms must be kept inoperable unless there is an immediate danger to residents.

Representative Mark Souder has filed a discharge petition to bring a bill to repeal the District's gun laws to the floor for a vote.

Please stand up for the Second Amendment and sign the Souder discharge petition.

Sincerely,


****************************

[glatt]

Washington, D.C. City Council Ignoring Supreme Court Ruling

Gee, that's not biased at all. [/sarcasm]


The Supreme Court ruled that handguns can't be banned. It specifically said they could be regulated but declined to say exactly how much they could be regulated. So the DC City Council, which would prefer to ban guns outright, is testing to see how far it can regulate them. It isn't ignoring anything. It's doing the exact opposite of ignoring. It's reacting to the Supreme Court's ruling. How can you be ignoring something when your actions are in direct response to that thing?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Gee, that's not biased at all. [/sarcasm]


The Supreme Court ruled that handguns can't be banned. It specifically said they could be regulated but declined to say exactly how much they could be regulated. So the DC City Council, which would prefer to ban guns outright, is testing to see how far it can regulate them. It isn't ignoring anything. It's doing the exact opposite of ignoring. It's reacting to the Supreme Court's ruling. How can you be ignoring something when your actions are in direct response to that thing?

I understand how you could try to make thier case for them but I doubt that anyone who has fought this action has any doubt about what they are trying to do. Do you really believe that any bottom loading magazine is a "machine gun" is a valid statement? Do you think that the intent of the DC council was to do anything other than to continue an outright ban and prevent people from having the means to protect themselves? please...

And people like to bitch and moan about how they have had rights taken away by the Bush admin. Talk about cherry picking.

[glatt]

The DC City Council has made no attempt to hide the fact that they want to ban guns. But they can't ban guns anymore. So instead they are trying to have the strictest regulations possible. The courts will rule and will decide if they are too strict. There's a lawsuit already.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by glatt

Gee, that's not biased at all. [/sarcasm]


The Supreme Court ruled that handguns can't be banned. It specifically said they could be regulated but declined to say exactly how much they could be regulated. So the DC City Council, which would prefer to ban guns outright, is testing to see how far it can regulate them. It isn't ignoring anything. It's doing the exact opposite of ignoring. It's reacting to the Supreme Court's ruling. How can you be ignoring something when your actions are in direct response to that thing?

1. Our rights can't be regulated by government. Government has zero authority to define or limit our rights.

2. The Supreme court didn't say keeping bearing "handguns" was an individual right, it said "guns".

3. You are right. They aren't ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling, they are defying it.

4. All gun regulation whether it's simple registration or banning a particular type of gun is unconstitutional and a violation of our RIGHT to keep and bear any number, of any type of gun we choose.

5. A right is something you don't require permission to do. A privilege may be regulated and revoked at any time. A right can not.