there is a new amendment to the Constitution being debated

[Toureg89]

and it is completely up to you of whether or not it passes, and THIS is what the amendment basically does:

"Libertarians...should eliminate, scale, reduce back government policies, programs, agencies, laws, et cetera, to approximately what we had in the '90s...................and i mean the 1790s."

it takes the current size of the government today, and downsizes to that which we had in 1790, would you pass the amendment, or kill it?

[BuddyRey]

1790 levels of government spending would certainly be an enormous improvement; but even better would be an amendment restraining government power and scope to pre-1789 levels.

[tremendoustie]

I can't see how any libertarian would oppose this. The government in the 1790s was not ideal, but it was far, far smaller and better than what we have now. I'm assuming we don't have to re-instate evil laws from the time, like slavery, of course.

I mean, I'm a voluntaryist, but if my leg's getting cut off, and you give me the option to lose a toe instead, I'm going to take it.

[Galileo Galilei]

I would go back to 1912. In 1912, the federal share of the GNP was only 1.75%. That would be less than $300 billion today, with no income taxes, no drug war, no war on terror, no Fed, no overseas empire, the Monroe Doctrine still in place, no department of education, no CIA, hardly any regulation of the economy, and huge annual economic growth. What little regulation there was back then probably did less harm than good.

[Sentient Void]

I would go back to 1912. In 1912, the federal share of the GNP was only 1.75%. That would be less than $300 billion today, with no income taxes, no drug war, no war on terror, no Fed, no overseas empire, the Monroe Doctrine still in place, no department of education, no CIA, hardly any regulation of the economy, and huge annual economic growth. What little regulation there was back then probably did less harm than good.

Although I'd vote yes on the OP amendment, I would absolutely vote to go back to 1912 spending levels / policies as well. For sure.

[Galileo Galilei]

Although I'd vote yes on the OP amendment, I would absolutely vote to go back to 1912 spending levels / policies as well. For sure.

we also had no federal licensing of occupations in 1912. This is one of the greatest threats to liberty that doesn't get much press.

[heavenlyboy34]

Although I agree with this hypothetical amendment, the OP is still working from flawed premises-including 1) the fraudulent "contract theory" of Constitutionalism 2) That the State is a legitimate authority.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Although I agree with this hypothetical amendment, the OP is still working from flawed premises-including 1) the fraudulent "contract theory" of Constitutionalism 2) That the State is a legitimate authority.

this

[GunnyFreedom]

Like the idea, but I could not vote for it because it is not law. What is a "Libertarian" and will only that subset of lawmakers be bound by this amendment? Will it have no effect on elected officials who are not members of the Libertarian party? What is et cetera? What is approximately? Who is the "I" in '..and I mean...' and what is that phrase supposed to enact?

In terms of law, the text is meaningless. Maybe if it were phrased as an actual Act of Congress I could vote in this poll....

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Oppose.

I would prefer competition in justice not a forced reduction of justice.

[MelissaWV]

Like the idea, but I could not vote for it because it is not law. What is a "Libertarian" and will only that subset of lawmakers be bound by this amendment? Will it have no effect on elected officials who are not members of the Libertarian party? What is et cetera? What is approximately? Who is the "I" in '..and I mean...' and what is that phrase supposed to enact?

In terms of law, the text is meaningless. Maybe if it were phrased as an actual Act of Congress I could vote in this poll....

This, and there are ways around that Amendment. It doesn't say which programs will be eliminated. Most importantly, which no one has caught yet, it says nothing about budget.

Let's do something, here. Let's scale back the number of agencies... but let's add a new one. Let's call it "the Safety Bureau." Under this new "Safety Bureau," I propose we place the standing military, OSHA, EPA, DOJ, DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA, HSA, TSA, FAA, NTSB... you get the idea. Their policy will be very simple, and scaled back to simply read something along the lines of "To Protect the People." Simple! Very scaled back! And it will only cost us $1 trillion per year, by the way. The "Office of Financial Participation" will ensure it is so, which includes the Treasury, IRS, SEC, and so on. Their policy will be "Those under the jurisdiction of the United States of America will pay their fair share for the security they enjoy." See? Simple.

The proposed Amendment also contains the word "approximately," which should never... ever... ever... EVER... appear in binding documentation of this magnitude. It really is a pretty pointless Amendment once you strip it down.

[Galileo Galilei]

The proposed amendment is vague.

better proposals:

1)

cap personal federal income tax at 10% for incomes above $100,000, phased in over 10 years

cap personal federal income tax at 9% for incomes below $90,000, phased in over 9 years

cap personal federal income tax at 8% for incomes below $80,000, phased in over 8 years

etc.

2)

tax corporations on gross income rather than net income, phased in over 10 years.

tax people on net income rather than gross income, phased in over 10 years.

3)

require that Supreme Court justices be confirmed by the state legislatures rather than the U.S. Senate

4)

go halfway back on the 17th amendment, make one Senator from each state elected by the legislature and one directly elected by the people.

All three of these amendments could achieve popular support, are very simple to understand, and are easy to implement and enforce. They would achieve a substantial increase in liberty.

[andrewh817]

No offense but this idea doesn't make sense at all.

If the problem in this country is governmental overlooking of the Constitution then how is passing another Constitutional amendment to change anything?

[Travlyr]

Here is a better amendment...


"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

[tremendoustie]

Oppose.

I would prefer competition in justice not a forced reduction of justice.

Of course. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Would no coercive state be better? Yes. Is reducing the coercive state a good thing? Yes.

[Toureg89]

I'm assuming we don't have to re-instate evil laws from the time, like slavery, of course.

I mean, I'm a voluntaryist, but if my leg's getting cut off, and you give me the option to lose a toe instead, I'm going to take it.
to tell the truth, it didnt even occur in my mind to consider taking away Womens/African Americans rights.

if we did default to a 1790 government, they would have as equal rights as anyone else.



Although I agree with this hypothetical amendment, the OP is still working from flawed premises-including 1) the fraudulent "contract theory" of Constitutionalism 2) That the State is a legitimate authority.

1. yes, i guess i AM buying in to this

2. no, i'm not buying in to the idea that the State is a legitimate authority.

i am realizing the fact that the state has more power, be it financial, political, or human, than we, libertarian-minded individuals believing in Natural Law, do.


Like the idea, but I could not vote for it because it is not law. What is a "Libertarian" and will only that subset of lawmakers be bound by this amendment? Will it have no effect on elected officials who are not members of the Libertarian party? What is et cetera? What is approximately? Who is the "I" in '..and I mean...' and what is that phrase supposed to enact?

In terms of law, the text is meaningless. Maybe if it were phrased as an actual Act of Congress I could vote in this poll....


The proposed amendment is vague.

better proposals:

1)

cap personal federal income tax at 10% for incomes above $100,000, phased in over 10 years

cap personal federal income tax at 9% for incomes below $90,000, phased in over 9 years

cap personal federal income tax at 8% for incomes below $80,000, phased in over 8 years

etc.

2)

tax corporations on gross income rather than net income, phased in over 10 years.

tax people on net income rather than gross income, phased in over 10 years.

3)

require that Supreme Court justices be confirmed by the state legislatures rather than the U.S. Senate

4)

go halfway back on the 17th amendment, make one Senator from each state elected by the legislature and one directly elected by the people.

All three of these amendments could achieve popular support, are very simple to understand, and are easy to implement and enforce. They would achieve a substantial increase in liberty.
LOL. yes, i know the amendment is vague, actually, i did not show you the amendment. the phrase i showed you from Miron is NOT supposed to be the actual amendment, its just supposed to explain that if you HAD an amendment that reduce the size of government to that of revolutionary-era times.

by size, i mean to the level of power exercised (IRS, Fed, breaking virtually ALL the BoR, Drug War, exc.) , and the % of GDP taxed.

i did not care to write up a WHOLE AMENDMENT JUST FOR A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION, LOL.



No offense but this idea doesn't make sense at all.

If the problem in this country is governmental overlooking of the Constitution then how is passing another Constitutional amendment to change anything?
party pooper:p

[Toureg89]

or how about this. an amendment that clearly outlaws all the things we as Libertarians don't think is constitutional, and then requires an amendment to recreate each specific law/code we got rid of

lol, yall just had to be picky about my hypothetical.

[johnrocks]

Get us back to 1999 spending then we can talk 1790 or 1912.

[Toureg89]

so, am i correct in assuming most people who voted no, did so because the actual amendment has not been presented in substance, and its concept is too vague?

not because you would prefer this government over a 1790 government?

[GunnyFreedom]

so, am i correct in assuming most people who voted no, did so because the actual amendment has not been presented in substance, and its concept is too vague?

not because you would prefer this government over a 1790 government?

Well, we surely can't vote for a bill we haven't even read!!! :p