Everyone doesn't have to agree. That's the point. All they have to agree on is you do what you want and reciprocably you allow others the same. Only when that concept is violated is there a demonstrable harm. I know concepts like that may be beyond your comprehension, so rather than examine them critically, you miscast them.go spam your bullshit elsewhere, i don't think anyone here is buying the whole notion of your utopia where everyone has to agree to everything before anyone can do anything.
but if i don't agree to everything then i am a slave and lysander spooner is unhappy thus i can't get erect and bulbous.Everyone doesn't have to agree.
but if i don't agree to everything then i am a slave and lysander spooner is unhappy thus i can't get erect and bulbous.[/QUOT
You forgot Prussian Schools.
As far as advice for your erectile problem, perhaps Cheesy will loan you a gerbil.
don't say that!rand isn't half the man or politician his father was
you know, i don't seem to recall the "principles of limited government" being the driving force..it was "democracy" over "monarchy"..I think it is a sad commentary on a once great nation that was founded on the principles of limited government and expanded individual freedoms, when an important cog of the government has to sue a more important cog of the government to try to force a secret arm of the government to stop spying on its citizens, while pointing at the foundational legal document of the nation and saying,"you can't do that, it says so right here!"
very reason I just visit from time to timei have no idea why i even bother anymore..no one here wants to have a real conversation.
DD is correct, America was founded on limited government.you know, i don't seem to recall the "principles of limited government" being the driving force..it was "democracy" over "monarchy"..
guess it doesn't take much to figure this one out anymorevery reason I just visit from time to time
Don't you actually mean, you only want a conversation with those who agree with you?i have no idea why i even bother anymore..no one here wants to have a real conversation.
I would say, because that is what you are limited to.You seriously haven't figured that out by now? These morons are about two things. Trolling and repeating Fox agenda. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. They are robotic in delivery, predictable even.
Why do you think I babble nonsense most of the time?
what abuse of power are we experiencing today, socky McFistuptheass?Our founders had the foresight to construct a government consisting of three separate branches to keep the government in check and prevent the abuse of power like we are experiencing today.
i could ask you the same however, when i post with citation in a debate, it's only fair to acknowledge rather than steam roll over and ignore the opinion.Don't you actually mean, you only want a conversation with those who agree with you?
I would say, because that is what you are limited to.
The abuse of the commerce clause has been pretty severe for some time.what abuse of power are we experiencing today, socky McFistuptheass?
That was the idea. Except you can't have "limited government" that purports to encompass everybody in a given geographical area whether they gave their individual consent or not.DD is correct, America was founded on limited government.
Many articles and amendments to the Constitution, devise a limited federal government, restrained to specific powers.
In a democracy, the majority cannot be restrained and can impose its will on the minority.
A constitutional government (republic) is where a constitution guards certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by a majority or the government.
Our founders had the foresight to construct a government consisting of three separate branches to keep the government in check and prevent the abuse of power like we are experiencing today.
Wheat or weed, interference is interference. Best to ignore people with fancy titles that think they can regulate commerce. They simply drive it underground.The abuse of the commerce clause has been pretty severe for some time.
Originally, the commerce clause was intended to restrict congress from dictating what you were going to buy sell or posses; unless it actually causes some sort of issues between states or countries.Wheat or weed, interference is interference. Best to ignore people with fancy titles that think they can regulate commerce. They simply drive it underground.
The idea that a commerce clause even existed rests on the idea that some other party outside of a mutual transaction should intervene. In regular guy speak, this means they decide what you will be able to buy, sell or possess. So, I'd say the very existence of a commerce clause, not the misapplication of it is the culprit.
Exactly. That's the problem with a "limited government". It always ends in the people that govern deciding the extent of their own power, thus it becomes a "limitless government".Originally, the commerce clause was intended to restrict congress from dictating what you were going to buy sell or posses; unless it actually causes some sort of issues between states or countries.