From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: New Libertarian Gun Control Book
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 09:44:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.183244.10725@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
}In article <1992Dec18.105249.18075@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>In article <1992Dec17.142338.27932@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
}>>
}>>I don't mean to be glib but what does the US constitution have to do with
}>>libertarianism ?  Granted there is some intersection in the US constitution
}>>and one that would govern a libertarian society but the US constitution is
}>>very non-libertarian.
}>
}>No, not very unlibertarian at all if you buy Epstein's argument.
}
}Okay, I'll have to read his book first.  I've read the constitution,
}and it makes me cringe.  About the only good part, IMO, is the Bill of
}Rights.  What's all this rubbish about "states" and "states rights",
}etc.  Ugh.

States aren't accorded rights as I recall, but powers.

}>He works from common law principles of restitution for takings, ...
}
}What's common law got to do with libertarianism ?  Why just that
}concept from common law ?  Why not all of common law ?

Common law embodies centuries of dispute-resolution which has much value to
offer libertarian jurisprudes.  Philosophically, restitution is the most
libertarian paradigm of justice, as opposed to retribution, for example.
Randy Barnett's done some work on this.  The reason not to go for all of
common law is that it unfortunately includes some very unlibertarian elements,
such as sodomy laws.

}Probably so.  I agree if the US gov't was more along the lines of
}what the framers had in mind it would be freer, but the constitution
}doesn't constrain the gov't enough and Uncle Sam takes advantage of
}every possible lopehole.  I don't see a way around that.  And I don't
}know a way of forcing the gov't to obey the constitution or it's own
}laws.  If someone has any good ideas on this I'd like to hear them.

Epstein argues that progressive taxation, rent controls, most zoning,
welfare transfer payments, and many other common practices of Uncle Sam are
indeed unconstitutional, despite failure to hold legislatures to strict
judicial scrutiny.

Since 1937 the US Supreme Court has practiced a double standard
by which free speech and other rights and liberties are accorded great
weight and protection, but economic liberties and property rights aren't.

}Taxation to pay for "necessary" gov't services is one thing and I can
}stomach that, but when the gov't decides to "take" someones property
}to build some public building or road that's going to far.  The gov't
}should have no special bargaining position in the market place.  The
}gov't should be our servant, not our master.
}
}Try this on for size, is this an invalid analogy, if so why ?
}
}    If polio [AIDS, fill in the blank] can be deterred by taxation to
}    buy everyone a vaccine, then I'd say that was just compensation of
}    private property taken for public use.

Let's assume that there's a fatal disease that everyone will get unless they
all get inoculated against it.  In that case, taking private property to
pay for the inoculations would be justified, because being saved from death
is compensation for the taking.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire