The Judiciary Thread

[Bodhisattva]

.. and if you were born weak and sick, then you'd better die young, since nobody will help you.
Sure, I like libertarianism on paper. Like I like Utopia. There is no difference between the two.

Let’s look at a simple example… Pandemic. Let’s pick a disease other than COVID. Such as https://www.cdc.gov/cholera/about/about-cholera-in-the-united-states.html
To protect you, a wealthy, happy, healthy individual, and your children from Cholera, the evil government has to have the CDC working on prevention. If not, then you will get Cholera (or pick any other disease) and die like wealthy libertarians did several hundred years ago.

And we can go on and on about the need for Police, DoD, DARPA, USDA, CDC, FDA, OSHA, FRS, and other evil government agencies that ivory tower libertarians take for granted

Libertarianism is not utopianism. It's not ivory tower or whatever nonsense criticism is lobbed our way. It's simply a philosophy that respects constitutional limits placed on the federal government and understands the concept of economic efficiency.

Step one, if the feds can't do something per the Constitution, then that's the role for the state or the people. If something is determined to be better for the feds to do it - and there will be such things over time - then amend the Constitution (as the founding document calls for) to give the feds that power. It's funny that people suggest a few things that may be best done at the federal level but ignore the thousands of things the feds have no business doing.

Step two, even if the federal government can legitimately do something, should it? At least on any grand scale? No one can seriously argue that the government is anything other than retarded when it comes to spending. And for those that haven't paid attention to what the government has done since they've been adults, I've seen how the government works first hand for 17 years now and relayed some of that information here. It's the most stupid entity imaginable. And we are more than $37,000,000,000,000 in debt and adding $2,000,000,000,000 in debt a year.

It's the people who ignore all this garbage and call for more government that are living in a constructed utopia. It's incredible that some people refuse to see it.

 

[some_al_fan]

Libertarianism is not utopianism. It's not ivory tower or whatever nonsense criticism is lobbed our way. It's simply a philosophy that respects constitutional limits placed on the federal government and understands the concept of economic efficiency.

Step one, if the feds can't do something per the Constitution, then that's the role for the state or the people. If something is determined to be better for the feds to do it - and there will be such things over time - then amend the Constitution (as the founding document calls for) to give the feds that power.

Step two, even if the federal government can legitimately do something, should it? At least on any grand scale? No one can seriously argue that the government is anything other than retarded when it comes to spending. And for those that haven't paid attention to what the government has done since they've been adults, I've seen how the government works first hand for 17 years now and relayed some of that information here. It's the most stupid entity imaginable. And we are more than $37,000,000,000,000 in debt and adding $2,000,000,000,000 in debt a year.

It's the people who ignore all this garbage and call for more government that are living in a constructed utopia. It's incredible that some people refuse to see it.

Can you please point out what specific government spending is unconstitutional, not counting spending that was done illegally by Trump in 2025?
AFAIK, the US Congress has authorized all government spending, and it is written in the Constitution that the US Congress has the power of the purse.
So, if you are unhappy with the level of spending, then you should contact your elected officials, instead of incorrectly claiming that it is illegitimate spending

 

[Bodhisattva]

Can you please point out what specific government spending is unconstitutional, not counting spending that was done illegally by Trump in 2025?
AFAIK, the US Congress has authorized all government spending, and it is written in the Constitution that the US Congress has the power of the purse.
So, if you are unhappy with the level of spending, then you should contact your elected officials, instead of incorrectly claiming that it is illegitimate spending

Look at the enumerated powers of the Constitution. The legitimate roll of the federal government is very limited. The power of the purse is to pay for the legitimate activities of the feds.

 

[some_al_fan]

Look at the enumerated powers of the Constitution. The legitimate roll of the federal government is very limited.

Role? Yes
But spending is not limited in the Constitution, and the power of the purse is given to Congress.
Most of our spending has been on DoD (more than half of the discretionary spending, if combined with VA benefits), and defense/VA is well within the Constitution



Thus, you can argue that we are spending too much (and maybe we are), but I am pretty sure that most of the spending is well within what was written in the Constitution

 

[Bodhisattva]

We are definitely spending too much. Trillions too much. It was always crazy and then went to "this one goes to 11" crazy during COVID and hasn't slowed down. My job is to spend money, and most of the contracts are bogus - mostly buying goods and services that are never used. Flat out waste. Not sure why people rush to the defense of Big Brother. He's strangling your (and your children's) future.

 

[some_al_fan]

We are definitely spending too much. Trillions too much. It was always crazy and then went to "this one goes to 11" crazy during COVID and hasn't slowed down. My job is to spend money, and most of the contracts are bogus - mostly buying goods and services that are never used. Flat out waste. Not sure why people rush to the defense of Big Brother. He's strangling your (and your children's) future.

Because people can also look at the other countries and notice that in the US, I and my children still have a bright future (assuming that we can survive Trump’s madness), while in the other countries, let’s say libertarian Argentina, that is not necessarily the case.

And I am not saying that we don’t have some wasteful spending, but it seems like you are suggesting throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Because people can also look at the other countries and notice that in the US, I and my children still have a bright future (assuming that we can survive Trump’s madness), while in the other countries, let’s say libertarian Argentina, that is not necessarily the case.

And I am not saying that we don’t have some wasteful spending, but it seems like you are suggesting throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Sure, things are less stupid here government-wise than in most (all) of the rest of the world. Hardly gives me the warm fuzzies for our future prosperity. And it's amusing the criticism thrown at Argentina under a libertarian leadership of two years compared to the previous half-century of bad/big government. In the face of stiff political opposition, interest rates have been cut from over 25% to under 3%. They have a fiscal surplus for the first time in a generation. Deregulating bad policies is freeing up the economy. There are certainly challenges but compared to what it was just two years ago, a lot of progress has been made. Sure, the bureaucrats, political cronies, corporate interests feeding at the public trough, and big government apologies don't like it. But I shed no tears for them.

Ending wasteful spending is not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There is no baby; there is no bathtub. It's retarded Big Brother and a turd-filled toilet. I'd like to flush it on a regular basis. And maybe put Big Retard on a diet to minimize the turds. Just my preference.

 

[some_al_fan]

Sure, things are less stupid here government-wise than in most (all) of the rest of the world. Hardly gives me the warm fuzzies for our future prosperity. And it's amusing the criticism thrown at Argentina under a libertarian leadership of two years compared to the previous half-century of bad/big government. In the face of stiff political opposition, interest rates have been cut from over 25% to under 3%. They have a fiscal surplus for the first time in a generation. Deregulating bad policies is freeing up the economy. There are certainly challenges but compared to what it was just two years ago, a lot of progress has been made. Sure, the bureaucrats, political cronies, corporate interests feeding at the public trough, and big government apologies don't like it. But I shed no tears for them.

Ending wasteful spending is not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There is no baby; there is no bathtub. It's retarded Big Brother and a turd-filled toilet. I'd like to flush it on a regular basis. And maybe put Big Retard on a diet to minimize the turds. Just my preference.

If things are so great in Argentina, then why does it need $40 billion US bailout?
That is what I don’t understand with all this “libertarian utopia,” where:
- libertarians are praising Argentina, which needs US bailout
- libertarians are against government spending, but they are Ok with $40 billion Argentine bailouts

When you say “Ending wasteful spending”, what exactly do you mean? Can you outline that? To me, the number 1 item is the bailout of Argentina.

 

[JDCrimson]

And you have perfectly described my future impression of Artificial Intelligence. A day will come when we will regret creating it...

Agreed. I would extend that to the size of government in general. Every government program (and the massive deficit spending that comes with it) is sold as a good idea to solve some desperate need. But, once Dr. Frankenstein creates his monster, too late does he realize the monster has a mind of its own, existing way beyond it's intended purpose, growing and consuming more and more resources, and eventually destroying everything. A true horror show of our own creation.

 

[JDCrimson]

And Libertarians want the benefits of such a society without the costs or consequences. For a Libertarian society to work there has to be no criminals and no foreign powers desiring to take you over.

Agree, a peaceful era produces lower cost intervention of government. We probably closed the most peaceful era in modern history for the foreseeable future simply because there few to none still living with the scars of WWII.

I would add:

- Libertarians want to treat adults like adults and (benevolently) leave them alone. I won't tell you what to do; you don't tell me what do to do. In no small part, because to do so involves paying for the government (the most stupid entity on the planet) to enforce such intervention. So, by extension, I won't steal from you; you don't steal from me. That leaves an individual's tax burden to the federal government around a miniscule 6%. I hope you choose well in life and get the corresponding rewards. If you choose poorly, expect the corresponding detriment. Either way, the results of my choices are on me; the results of your choices are on you.

 

[Bodhisattva]

If things are so great in Argentina, then why does it need $40 billion US bailout?
That is what I don’t understand with all this “libertarian utopia,” where:
- libertarians are praising Argentina, which needs US bailout
- libertarians are against government spending, but they are Ok with $40 billion Argentine bailouts

When you say “Ending wasteful spending”, what exactly do you mean? Can you outline that? To me, the number 1 item is the bailout of Argentina.

Just because things are better in many ways in Argentina than they've recently been, doesn't mean that things are "great." I never said that. Why would you say that? Can we stop with the strawman nonsense? They obviously have many challenges ahead of them with a lot of forces (e.g. opposition political parties) working against them. Again, the new regime has been in power for just two years.

I'm not ok with the bailout; my overwhelming default is to oppose such subsidies for individuals, businesses, and foreign governments. I would have to know more about this one to make a definitive call. I suspect some politically well-connected people and entities are driving this as a backdoor way to bail themselves out, but I don't know for sure.

The concept of waste isn't that mysterious IMO. Many secretary-level government entities should be completely or nearly completely eliminated. Departments of Education, Agriculture, HUD, etc. Even in departments that are specifically justified by a constitutional reading (e.g., Defense), the amount of ridiculous spending is obscene. In my 17 years of writing government contracts, I have yet to do one that was not largely or completely wasteful of taxpayer money.

The government spends nearly $2,000,000,000,000 more than in did five years ago. And five years ago the government spent money like a drunken sailor. Isn't it obvious that the government isn't a responsible steward of your money? Shouldn't you be ticked and demand better?

 

[Bodhisattva]

And Libertarians want the benefits of such a society without the costs or consequences. For a Libertarian society to work there has to be no criminals and no foreign powers desiring to take you over.

I have no idea how you come up with this. A libertarian default is that people are responsible for their own costs and consequences. We preach personal responsibility and merit. Be smart or be stupid. Your choice. The rewards are yours alone, as are the punishments.

No criminals? There will always be criminals. That's what the justice system is for.

Libertarian foreign policy does not seek out conflict - preferring free trade over military conquest. Problems with foreign power aggression? That's what State and DoD and are for.

The aforementioned entities are constitutionally justified.

 

[Bamaro]

And you have perfectly described my future impression of Artificial Intelligence. A day will come when we will regret creating it...

That day is here but most dont notice it yet.

 

[JDCrimson]

Someone else's stupidity imposes on your libertarian aspirations. How do you reconcile this certainty?

How does this reconcile with rebuilding after natural disasters and the like? A true libertarian government would not be there to provide the FEMA support.

I dont even know why I engaged in this. Libertarianism died with the arrival of the Mosaic Law.

I have no idea how you come up with this. A libertarian default is that people are responsible for their own costs and consequences. We preach personal responsibility and merit. Be smart or be stupid. Your choice. The rewards are yours alone, as are the punishments.

No criminals? There will always be criminals. That's what the justice system is for.

Libertarian foreign policy does not seek out conflict - preferring free trade over military conquest. Problems with foreign power aggression? That's what State and DoD and are for.

The aforementioned entities are constitutionally justified.

 

[some_al_fan]

I like libertarianism as an ideology. It is just not practical in real life. Once you start asking libertarian politicians about solving real world problems, you quickly find out that they don't have the answers

 

[Huckleberry]

I have no idea how you come up with this. A libertarian default is that people are responsible for their own costs and consequences. We preach personal responsibility and merit. Be smart or be stupid. Your choice. The rewards are yours alone, as are the punishments.

No criminals? There will always be criminals. That's what the justice system is for.

Libertarian foreign policy does not seek out conflict - preferring free trade over military conquest. Problems with foreign power aggression? That's what State and DoD and are for.

The aforementioned entities are constitutionally justified.

I don’t disagree that the federal government is bloated and spends irresponsibly. But if libertarianism is the answer, I’m genuinely curious about how it handles some real-world complications.

If we limit federal power strictly to what’s enumerated in 1787, what’s the plan for everything the framers couldn’t have imagined — things like air travel, cybersecurity, nuclear energy, or pandemics? Would we let fifty different state systems handle those separately? Wouldn’t that invite chaos every time problems cross state lines, which most modern ones do?

Libertarians emphasize personal responsibility, which I respect. But how does libertarianism address outcomes that have little to do with personal choice — like being born poor, disabled, or in an area with unsafe water or failing schools? If the answer is “private charity,” what evidence suggests that private giving can scale to replace public safety nets in a country of 330 million?

You mention cutting departments like Education and Agriculture. If those vanish, who coordinates student loans, school standards, food safety, and agricultural disease control between states? Markets? State compacts? Without a coordinating framework, how would we keep economically weaker states from being left behind — with lower standards, unsafe products, and underfunded schools?

And when it's said that “the government shouldn’t tell people what to do,” does that include pollution rules, building safety codes, or vaccination requirements? At what point does one person’s “freedom” from regulation become another person’s loss of clean air, health, or safety?

I’m not asking these questions to score points — I’m genuinely wondering how libertarian principles scale in a complex, interdependent nation. Because in theory, “leave everyone alone” sounds elegant; in practice, it risks leaving a lot of people unprotected, unheard, and left to fend for themselves in a system that quietly rewards the powerful.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

I like libertarianism as an ideology. It is just not practical in real life. Once you start asking libertarian politicians about solving real world problems, you quickly find out that they don't have the answers

It’s Saturday which means I have little interest in the poli-board when there’s football to watch. So short reply today: assuming this assertion is true (and I don’t think it is) what is worse: not having an answer or only having wrong answers? Dems and Reps both seem to prefer feeding the MIC and making large holes in other peoples’ countries as the default option.

This is especially true when we’re dealing with brown people. We tend to be more diplomatic with countries that have a white majority. (And no, this isn’t about racism, it’s about not wanting to kick off another world war.) I feel like we can do better than this, but you wouldn’t know it from the last 25 years of foreign policy.

 

[92tide]

.. and if you were born weak and sick, then you'd better die young, since nobody will help you.
Sure, I like libertarianism on paper. Like I like Utopia. There is no difference between the two.

Let’s look at a simple example… Pandemic. Let’s pick a disease other than COVID. Such as https://www.cdc.gov/cholera/about/about-cholera-in-the-united-states.html
To protect you, a wealthy, happy, healthy individual, and your children from Cholera, the evil government has to have the CDC working on prevention. If not, then you will get Cholera (or pick any other disease) and die like wealthy libertarians did several hundred years ago.

And we can go on and on about the need for Police, DoD, DARPA, USDA, CDC, FDA, OSHA, FRS, and other evil government agencies that ivory tower libertarians take for granted

cartman loved the idea of having his own amusement park to himself

 

[92tide]

View attachment 53728

I like libertarianism as an ideology. It is just not practical in real life. Once you start asking libertarian politicians about solving real world problems, you quickly find out that they don't have the answers

or their “answers” are strangely similar to bog standard gop b.s.

 

[JDCrimson]

Again, libertarian foreign policy assumes that other countries like China, Russia, and Iran will just mind their own business and stick within their borders. They have not done so and will not do.

God had one simple rule for man, dont eat fruit from the tree of knowledge. We could not do it. Sin was born and hopes of libertarian society vanished. "You do you" is not even a Jesus inspired value as we are called to care for the poor sick and infirm. "You do You" really means "So I can Do Me."

Libertarians that I know dont vote and are not civically engaged. Libertarians have no solution or sympathy for anyone other than themselves.

It’s Saturday which means I have little interest in the poli-board when there’s football to watch. So short reply today: assuming this assertion is true (and I don’t think it is) what is worse: not having an answer or only having wrong answers? Dems and Reps both seem to prefer feeding the MIC and making large holes in other peoples’ countries as the default option.

This is especially true when we’re dealing with brown people. We tend to be more diplomatic with countries that have a white majority. (And no, this isn’t about racism, it’s about not wanting to kick off another world war.) I feel like we can do better than this, but you wouldn’t know it from the last 25 years of foreign policy.