Comments on: Ad Populum

By: The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Controversial Organization Admonishes Soldiers and Peace Officers to Defend the Constitution

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 03:28:51 +0000

[...] John: Rights aren’t subject to mob rule, or shouldn’t be. “Crimes” without victims… [...]

By: John

John — Fri, 27 May 2011 03:34:55 +0000

Rights aren’t subject to mob rule, or shouldn’t be.

“Crimes” without victims aren’t crimes and the government needs to STFU about it, i.e., drugs, prostitution, gun ownership, etc.

The “general welfare” words in the Constitution are second-most abused words in the document, after the obscenities done in the name of the commerce clause.

And it still pains me that the assemblage at the time didn’t cockpunch slavery and end that obscenity right then and there.

Why are people so enamoured with voting for nanny?

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 25 May 2011 13:14:54 +0000

Besides ad populum, it’s also a prejudicial language fallacy.

By: ricketson

ricketson — Wed, 25 May 2011 04:21:06 +0000

“Extreme” also implies “drastic change”. If a person is generally satisfied with the status quo, then there is a good reason to avoid drastic change, and reason to steer away from “extremist” candidates.

By: Brad Warbiany

Brad Warbiany — Tue, 24 May 2011 21:10:16 +0000

Thane,

From your premise, you can’t draw any conclusions about the abilities of the Constitution. If you accept the premise as a sound moral statement, than any clauses within the Constitution that violate that premise are by definition immoral.

Thus, the 18th Amendment would be considered immoral [although entirely "Constitutional"], as it empowers the government to infringe upon the rights of citizens by making a personal action that violates nobody’s rights illegal. However, the 14th Amendment would be moral, as it protects the rights and privileges of free individuals from being infringed by state and local law, even though it expands the ability of the federal government to regulate the states.

The Constitution is a good libertarian document — not a perfect one. One can advocate for limited government without invoking the Constitution or explicitly disagreeing with it in certain places.

By: Thane Eichenauer

Thane Eichenauer — Tue, 24 May 2011 19:19:44 +0000

Premise: Rights ought not to be subject to a vote at any level of government.
Agreed. But does the US Constitutuion authorize the federal government to regulate the states. Before the pro-limited government crowd can advocate for this concept shouldn’t it advocate that the constitution means what it says and not what we think it aught to say?