Is it free markets unencumbered by government you dislike?
Its not a matter of dislike, its the fact that necessary and proper regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause are not only Constitutional, but ensure the integrity of the markets allowing them to flourish. See, e.g.,
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937),
United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941),
Wickard v. Filburn (1943),
Gonzales v. Raich (2005).
As with libertarianism in general, the notion that we can return to a pre-
Lochner Era of liberty to contract is naïve and reactionary; as the Supreme Court correctly observed in
Parrish, the relationship between employer and employee has long been one of unequals, where the former enjoys an overwhelming advantage.
Is it you find maximum individual liberty unacceptable?
This doesnt make any sense absent examples as to what constitutes maximum individual liberty, otherwise the phrase is meaningless.
Again, its not a matter of dislike, but one of what actually constitutes small government, where the phrase is likewise meaningless absent specific examples.
The Constitution says nothing about what size the government should be, it neither prohibits big government nor endorses small government; the government is currently the size it should be to accommodate and administer to a First World, 21st Century industrialized Western nation such as the United States, that maintains a free market capitalist economy.
Or could it be you find the State controlling your life acceptable?
Lets combine this with maximum individual liberty, where the state controlling your life is just as much meaningless nonsense.
Although inalienable, our civil rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by the state. See, e.g.,
DC v Heller (2008), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that [l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
In our Constitutional Republic, therefore, where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, when the state seeks to place limits on our civil liberties, such restrictions must be rationally based, they must be supported by objective, documented evidence, and they must pursue a proper legislative end; and failing to meet these criteria, such measures are invalidated by the courts.
Likewise when the state meets its burden with regard to placing limits on our civil liberties, the people are not being controlled by the state, rather, the people are subject to appropriate governmental policies that comport with the Constitution and its case law, where the people are at liberty to challenge the constitutionally of all laws and policies in a court of law.
Maybe its high government taxation you prefer.
High government taxation, yet another meaningless phrase without examples or a clear definition.
What constitutes high, whats the dollar amount, and where does the Constitution prohibit high taxes, assuming therell ever be consensus as to what manifests high taxes to begin with.
In fact, Americans pay less in taxes today than in the last 60 years:
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com
Moreover, the quality of services Americans receive represents an outstanding value with regard to the taxes they pay: in maintaining roads, providing clean water, keeping food and drugs safe, and ensuring workplace safety.
In essence your post is indicative of the fundamental failure of libertarianism, where its principles are vacuous and naïve, devoid of specific examples or facts, at odds with two centuries of settled and accepted Constitutional case law its ultimately a political ideology made up of bumper sticker slogans and talking point sound bites.
