You went full Atlas Shrugged. Never go full Atlas Shrugged.

[TNHarley]

That is merely a recitation of current law. If we changed the law then it wouldnt be private property. I'm trying to discuss the philosophy and reasoning behind the law. Why should you be allowed to claim ideas as your own personal property?

You can for a design, a sequence of musical notes or the combination of chemicals. Why?

Im not referring to the law.

 

[TNHarley]

Have your tantrum and slither away, as you always do.

yawn

OR

Put on your big girl panties and deal with this fact:

*and a Supreme Court that can delineate nonenumerated powers ( and rights)

Where do they get the power to give the fed gov more powers even though the constitution explicitly states differently?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LOL "nonenumerated powers".

Right, "unenumerated" is better.

And you can quickly find examples, which represent the people granting these powers to the federal government, as supported by the SCOTUS.

Unless you operate under the bizarre delusional that the short list in the constitution is all the federal government does.

 

[Curried Goats]

It's a reasonable question. I think there are some good answers, but it's worth discussing.

I think there are some good answers as well I just don't imagine I'm going to get any from these Bingos. For instance why should we grant monopolies, subsidize businesses and industries and let them turn around and charge us an arm and a leg for the products our tax dollars helped produced? I think if we're going to grant a business or industry some legal advantage that society should negotiate something in return rather than the assurance that their profitability is good for us all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where do they get the power to give the fed gov more powers even though the constitution explicitly states differently?

From the people.

As explicitly stated in the constitution.

 

[Curried Goats]

Im not referring to the law.

What are you referring to then?

 

[dblack]

Right, "unenumerated" is better.

I think "oxymoron" is better. If the framers meant for there to be unenumerated powers, why do you presume they bothered enumerating some? Just as examples?

And you can quickly find examples, which represent the people granting these powers to the federal government, as supported by the SCOTUS.

Yes. They sold us out.

Unless you operate under the bizarre delusional that the short list in the constitution is all the federal government does.

That's the way it was intended to work, yes.

 

[TNHarley]

Right, "unenumerated" is better.

And you can quickly find examples, which represent the people granting these powers to the federal government, as supported by the SCOTUS.

Unless you operate under the bizarre delusional that the short list in the constitution is all the federal government does.

So what was the point of the enumerated powers then?

 

[TNHarley]

From the people.

As explicitly stated in the constitution.

 

[dblack]

I think there are some good answers as well I just don't imagine I'm going to get any from these Bingos. For instance why should we grant monopolies, subsidize businesses and industries and let them turn around and charge us an arm and a leg for the products our tax dollars helped produced?

We shouldn't. We should shut down all these programs.

I think if we're going to grant a business or industry some legal advantage that society should negotiate something in return rather than the assurance that their profitability is good for us all.

Government shouldn't be in the business of granting anyone "legal advantage".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think "oxymoron" is better. If the framers meant for there to be unenumerated powers, why do you presume they bothered enumerating some? Just as examples?

Well, first off, regulating commerce was enumerated.

Second, they gave the rest to the States and the people.

So the people can grant powers to the federal government via their federal representatives.

The SCOTUS then decides if they are constitutional.

This isn't new stuff.

 

[TNHarley]

Well, first off, regulating commerce was enumerated.

Second, they gave the rest to the States and the people.

So the people can grant powers to the federal government via their federal representatives.

The SCOTUS then decides if they are constitutional.

This isn't new stuff.

Good god almighty

 

[dblack]

Well, first off, regulating commerce was enumerated.

Yeah, but there wasn't as asterisk pointing to a paragraph explaining how that really meant government could bully anyone who dared to trade without their permission. SCOTUS did that.

Second, they gave the rest to the States and the people.

So the people can grant powers to the federal government via their federal representatives.

You should be a hacker. Finding exploits is a valuable skill

The SCOTUS then decides if they are constitutional.

This isn't new stuff.

No, it's not. Statists have been on this campaign since the ink dried on the Constitution.

 

[Curried Goats]

We shouldn't. We should shut down all these programs.

Government shouldn't be in the business of granting anyone "legal advantage".

It already does by the very nature of an economic system founded on the principle of private property, which is also the fundamental flaw of libertarian economic philosophy. Libertarians treat property ownership as a fundamental right from God or nature when what it actually is is protectionism by force of law.

 

[dblack]

Good god almighty

It's like one of those shell games.

 

[dblack]

It already does by the very nature of an economic system founded on the principle of private property, which is also the fundamental flaw of libertarian philosophy. Libertarians treat property ownership as fundamental right from God or nature when what it actually is is protectionism by force of law.

Yeah. I don't do socialism. Sorry.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Good god almighty

So you called price controls "refulations".

Right?

Is selling a prescription drug... commerce?

Constitutional literalists are funny. They are like religious people. They claim the constitution is infallible and clear, yet no two of you can ever agree on all of it.

Because you're all wrong.

Now search for a fake laugh emoji, while you sit there all pissed off. As usual.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's like one of those shell games.

That you must be lamenting losing badly at, given the factual history of the SCOTUS and the powers the federal government has.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yeah. I don't do socialism. Sorry.

I'm never even mentioned socialism, I'm just pointing out the flaws in libertarian economic philosophy. Let me know when you can dispute something I've said.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah. I don't do socialism. Sorry.

You apparently don't know even know what socialism is.

So I believe you.