A question for Catholic libertarians

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That does no harm to my point that it is appropriate for government to build roads. State governments are governments too.

State governments have their own constitutions that authorize all sorts of things.
California, for example, constitutionally grants an education K-12 for all. The U.S. Constitution does not speak of education.

In a representative democracy the people rarely vote directly for anything. This project is nothing special in that regard. And although some may have seen this project as a bad idea, it is clear that most people today agree it was a good idea to build roads.

It may have been a good idea at the time…but congress had no authority to build roads then…and now.

That depends on the extent to which the proposed new provision conflicts with the existing constitution. I cannot conceive of an change so far reaching as to require a total rewrite. For any reasonable change, a single amendment would do. However these changes we have been discussing are purely hypothetical, in answer to the purely hypothetical question of whether the people could authorize their government to reinstitute segregation, which you raised, for some reason.

That was an example of pure democracy. Majority rule if you will. The majority of people WANTING to reinstate segregation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It may have been a good idea at the time…but congress had no authority to build roads then…and now.

But you do admit that states have the authority to build roads? Or is all governmental road building a violation of their respective constitutions?

That was an example of pure democracy. Majority rule if you will. The majority of people WANTING to reinstate segregation.

Well, if the majority of the people really did want to reinstate segregation, they could do it, but it would take 2/3 of the states to approve of it. Perhaps a supermajority is needed. But the fact is people today overwhelmingly disapprove of segregation, so it will not happen.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

But you do admit that states have the authority to build roads? Or is all governmental road building a violation of their respective constitutions?

States have whatever authority is granted to them by their constitutions. If a state’s constitution authorized the building and maintaining of roads, at the expense of taxpayers, then that would be a legitimate function of that state government.

Another state may not have a provision to build and maintain roads, bridges etc. In that case the state would violate its constitution…if it created a Department of Roads & Bridges and diverted tax payer’s money to support it.

However, the state legislature could pass a law authorizing the state government to build and maintain roads and bridges. If that law complied with the state’s constitution, then the building and maintaining of roads would be a legitimate function of that state’s government.

The problem occurs when government (state or federal) arbitrarily exceeds the limitations placed upon it by the citizens without the due process of law. Even if that government considers its action to be for the common good.

 

[PseuTonym]

The government is force, and the only morally legitimate use of force is to repel force. To use the point of the gun to impose the will and goals of the powers in government is tyrannical.

Suppose that you put your phone number on a Do Not Call List because you don’t want to receive telemarketing calls. Consider a one-person telemarketing operation (i.e. a business owned and managed by one person who has no employees). The telemarketer knows that your number is on the list, or does not know and does not care whether or not your number is on the list. The telemarketer calls you to sell you something.

In making that telephone call, did the telemarketer use force against you?

I see two clear points:

1. If there is absolutely no enforcement of a Do Not Call List, then it will not be very effective. The first step in enforcement does not involve guns, but ultimately guns may be used if all else fails.
2. The telemarketer can complain that the government is using force, but you made the choice to put your phone number on a Do Not Call List. The telemarketer is free to call people who did not choose to put their phone numbers on that list. The only remaining complaint that the telemarketer can make is that it costs money to create and maintain the Do Not Call List, and that the telemarketer is a taxpayer who was forced to pay for a Do Not Call List, and that it is not legitimate for the government to regulate telephone communications.

I have an idea. Instead of using guns to enforce the law, the government could call the telemarketer at home every day, several times per day, and attempt to sell lottery tickets to the telemarketer. After all, the government needs to raise revenue, and taxes are unacceptable coercion. If the telemarketer stops calling people who are on the Do Not Call List, then the government will stop calling the telemarketer.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Of course it isn’t meaningless. That’s why the process for amending the constitution is so difficult, compared to just passing a law. This ensures that only amendments with widespread support get passed, and only after lots of deliberation. That said, one wonders how the 18th amendment got passed, when it seems that it never did enjoy universal support.

Not sure what point you think is my point, but my point is already reality.

As far as, "This ensures that only amendments with widespread support get passed, and only after lots of deliberation. "

This could simply mean that “mob rule” becomes the rule of law.

I suppose one of the things that I am trying to point out is that just because something is legal does not mean it is right and just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it is wrong.

Also, a law that one considers wrong but legal can be either “passive or active”.

By “active or passive”, what I mean is that a law can allow something but not force one to do it and another law can be something that one must do or be breaking the law.

As you pointed out, “That said, one wonders how the 18th amendment got passed, when it seems that it never did enjoy universal support.”

This is “quite the understatement” since the 18th amendment not only did NOT “enjoy universal support”, it did not enjoy majority support, it seemed to just enjoy “loud mouth support”.

In nuclear physics there is such a thing that is called “critical mass”, in lawmaking it seems that there is also something that is akin to “critical mass” and a majority is not always needed for this “critical mass” to be reached.

It seems that there can be times when those “rights” that some of the writers of some of the “founding papers” of this country considered given to us by God, can not be given away fast enough by some of us in the present day.

The ole “freedom vs security” debate, and as someone or another once or more times has said, the one who surrenders their freedom for security may one day wake up with neither.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

States have whatever authority is granted to them by their constitutions. If a state’s constitution authorized the building and maintaining of roads, at the expense of taxpayers, then that would be a legitimate function of that state government.

Another state may not have a provision to build and maintain roads, bridges etc. In that case the state would violate its constitution…if it created a Department of Roads & Bridges and diverted tax payer’s money to support it.

However, the state legislature could pass a law authorizing the state government to build and maintain roads and bridges. If that law complied with the state’s constitution, then the building and maintaining of roads would be a legitimate function of that state’s government.

The problem occurs when government (state or federal) arbitrarily exceeds the limitations placed upon it by the citizens without the due process of law. Even if that government considers its action to be for the common good.

The US Constitution has some language to the effect that any rights not specifically mentioned here are reserved for the states. So for the Federal Constitution you may have a better case claiming that building roads is not authorized at the federal level. But state constitutions have no such provisions that I know of. What can be authorized is pretty much anything that doesn’t explicitly violate existing provisions. In other words, states can build roads without a specific mention of them in their constitutions because there is no specific provision that says something like “the state shall not build roads”. So by default, states can legally build roads without specific mention of that function in their constitutions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As far as, "This ensures that only amendments with widespread support get passed, and only after lots of deliberation. "

This could simply mean that “mob rule” becomes the rule of law.

As I have pointed out before, any group of people who are so ill-disposed to one another that their actions are best characterized as mob rule cannot form a just government of any kind - be it democratic or libertarian or anything else. They are a disfunctional group - not a nation. So if this group subverts the democratic process to something resembling “mob rule”, that is not a valid criticism of democracy.

I suppose one of the things that I am trying to point out is that just because something is legal does not mean it is right and just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it is wrong.

I totally agree.

Also, a law that one considers wrong but legal can be either “passive or active”.

This is often a distinction without a difference. For example, a zoning law that says you may not have grass higher than 12 inches on your lawn may look passive because its language is in terms of what you are or are not allowed to have. But in its implementation such a law has active components because it would require you to mow your lawn.

 

[Tom_Baum]

As I have pointed out before, any group of people who are so ill-disposed to one another that their actions are best characterized as mob rule cannot form a just government of any kind - be it democratic or libertarian or anything else. They are a disfunctional group - not a nation. So if this group subverts the democratic process to something resembling “mob rule”, that is not a valid criticism of democracy.

It seems as if the “founding fathers” of this country thought that it was indeed a “valid criticism of democracy” and that is why, at least from what I have heard, they set up a republic as opposed to a democracy.

I totally agree.

This is often a distinction without a difference. For example, a zoning law that says you may not have grass higher than 12 inches on your lawn may look passive because its language is in terms of what you are or are not allowed to have. But in its implementation such a law has active components because it would require you to mow your lawn.

I disagree with your “This is often a distinction without a difference” since the “law” that you pointed out is, indeed, a law which is “active” as opposed to “passive”.

As I pointed out, “another law can be something that one must do or be breaking the law”.

There are some things that one is allowed to do by law but are not forced to do by law and that is what I was referring to as “passive”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are some things that one is allowed to do by law but are not forced to do by law and that is what I was referring to as “passive”.

Well, then that’s not a law at all. For example, there is no law saying that I am allowed to bake bread with skittles mixed in. So if they did pass a law saying “a person may bake bread with skittles”, such a law would change nothing because I was already allowed to do that before the law was passed. The default understanding is that everyone is allowed to do anything that is not disallowed by some law or another. The only time a law like you are describing would make sense is if the thing they are saying you can do was previously the subject of an earlier law that said you could not do it. For instance, suppose there was a law saying that smoking pot is illegal. Then it would make sense to pass a law saying “one may smoke pot for medical reasons”.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The US Constitution has some language to the effect that any rights not specifically mentioned here are reserved for the states. So for the Federal Constitution you may have a better case claiming that building roads is not authorized at the federal level. But state constitutions have no such provisions that I know of. What can be authorized is pretty much anything that doesn’t explicitly violate existing provisions. In other words, states can build roads without a specific mention of them in their constitutions because there is no specific provision that says something like “the state shall not build roads”. So by default, states can legally build roads without specific mention of that function in their constitutions.

Using the “default” method…state governments could build churches…or anything else a few well placed “influence donations” could buy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Using the “default” method…state governments could build churches…or anything else a few well placed “influence donations” could buy.

This goes to the heart of the Establishment Clause Incorporation debate. Those in favor of incorporation point to the 14th amendment as justification for incorporation. The US Supreme Court has generally decided in favor of incorporation, although not without dissent. That means as things stand today, the states are bound by the Establishment Clause too.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Well, then that’s not a law at all. For example, there is no law saying that I am allowed to bake bread with skittles mixed in. So if they did pass a law saying “a person may bake bread with skittles”, such a law would change nothing because I was already allowed to do that before the law was passed. The default understanding is that everyone is allowed to do anything that is not disallowed by some law or another. The only time a law like you are describing would make sense is if the thing they are saying you can do was previously the subject of an earlier law that said you could not do it. For instance, suppose there was a law saying that smoking pot is illegal. Then it would make sense to pass a law saying “one may smoke pot for medical reasons”.

You wrote, “Then it would make sense to pass a law saying “one may smoke pot for medical reasons””

Or they might even pass a law that one could smoke pot for any reason.

I am referring to it as a “passive” law in that it allows something but does not force one to do something.

I am referring to a law as “active” if it forces someone to do something or be in violation of the law.

If the law concerning pot smoking said that one must smoke pot than that would be an “active” law in the way that I am referring to “active and passive”.

There are many instances of laws being “active or passive”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You wrote, “Then it would make sense to pass a law saying “one may smoke pot for medical reasons””

Or they might even pass a law that one could smoke pot for any reason.

I am referring to it as a “passive” law in that it allows something but does not force one to do something.

I am referring to a law as “active” if it forces someone to do something or be in violation of the law.
.

I understand what you mean about a law being “active”. But I don’t understand the role of a “passive” law as you describe it. In my example of the pot-smoking “passive” law, such a law would only be necessary if there was a previous law on the books that prohibited pot-smoking. In that case a passive law that allowed pot smoking is not really a law on its own. Rather it is just a weakening or modification of a previous law. Can you give me an example of a passive law that makes sense all by itself and is not just a limitation of an existing law? Similarly, what would you call a law that prohibits something, like pot-smoking? Active or passive? It sure isn’t active because it doesn’t force you to do anything. But neither is it passive in the sense you describe, because it doesn’t allow you to do anything either. It just says what you can’t do.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I understand what you mean about a law being “active”. But I don’t understand the role of a “passive” law as you describe it. In my example of the pot-smoking “passive” law, such a law would only be necessary if there was a previous law on the books that prohibited pot-smoking. In that case a passive law that allowed pot smoking is not really a law on its own. Rather it is just a weakening or modification of a previous law. Can you give me an example of a passive law that makes sense all by itself and is not just a limitation of an existing law? Similarly, what would you call a law that prohibits something, like pot-smoking? Active or passive? It sure isn’t active because it doesn’t force you to do anything. But neither is it passive in the sense you describe, because it doesn’t allow you to do anything either. It just says what you can’t do.

There are laws that are “active” such as the grass cutting that you brought up in that if you don’t do it or have someone do it, you are in violation and there are laws that are “passive” in that one is not “forced” to do something or have it done to be in violation and than there are laws in which people attempt to live other people’s lives for them rather than keeping their noses out of other people’s business.

“Active and passive” may not be all encompassing and there are those laws that overlap both but they do cover some laws.

And as far as, “such a law would only be necessary if there was a previous law on the books that prohibited pot-smoking”, this is an example of when people attempt to live other people’s lives rather than living their own.

There are many, many laws, that are on the books, that are simply people trying to force themselves on others.

It may seem like a paradox or even be a paradox but there are those that do not like freedom, especially other people’s freedom, and this could very well be why the “Bill of Rights” and other such writings, had to be written in the first place.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are laws that are “active” such as the grass cutting that you brought up in that if you don’t do it or have someone do it, you are in violation and there are laws that are “passive” in that one is not “forced” to do something or have it done to be in violation and than there are laws in which people attempt to live other people’s lives for them rather than keeping their noses out of other people’s business.

“Active and passive” may not be all encompassing and there are those laws that overlap both but they do cover some laws.

And as far as, “such a law would only be necessary if there was a previous law on the books that prohibited pot-smoking”, this is an example of when people attempt to live other people’s lives rather than living their own.

There are many, many laws, that are on the books, that are simply people trying to force themselves on others.

It may seem like a paradox or even be a paradox but there are those that do not like freedom, especially other people’s freedom, and this could very well be why the “Bill of Rights” and other such writings, had to be written in the first place.

You still have not given me one single example of a passive law, other than those that just limit other active laws.

 

[Tom_Baum]

You still have not given me one single example of a passive law, other than those that just limit other active laws.

Maybe that is because everything is consider “legal” until we “humans” make it illegal.

There is no such thing as “legal or illegal” in nature.

Wouldn’t pretty much ALL of the BILL OF RIGHTS be considered “passive”?

Of course, these (BILL OF RIGHTS) are just another example of something that “limit other active laws”, but nevertheless, they say quite a bit even if they are “passive” in nature.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I am referring to it as a “passive” law in that it allows something but does not force one to do something.

That sounds like “PERMISSION” to me.

If you have to ask permission from a government…you are not a free person.

 

[migueltojose]

I think Jesus (and therefore God) is a libertarian, by my limited definition.

Learn Live Choose… repeat…