Originally Posted By: wfaulk
There is a strong sentiment in the US against the federal government overreaching its power. The US Constitution explicitly states what powers the federal government has and what powers the states have. (The original Constitution consisted of the main article, plus the first ten amendments, which are collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights.)

One of the things that is explicitly defined as a federal power is the power to form a military. There are other vaguely worded clauses that some people interpret very conservatively and others interpret very liberally, as well as everywhere in between. For example, the Constitution states that the federal government is to "provide for the … general welfare of the United States". Liberals believe that providing healthcare can be reasonably seen as providing for the general welfare. Conservatives seem to believe that general welfare doesn't comprise much beyond the prevention of dissolution.


I'll answer your other post when I have some more time, but I seem to recall reading a response to the General Welfare clause by Thomas Jefferson where he explicitly states that the clause is NOT intended to give the federal government the authority to provide services not explicitly given in the rest of the Constitution, but rather that it gives them the authority to tax for those powers specifically granted.

The constitution is not vaguely worded, no matter how much the central planners (right and left) would like to believe. It states very unambiguously as the 10th Amendment:

Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Health care is not specifically "herein granted" the federal government by the Constitution. Period.

You see two philosophically different points of view between me and Bitt. Bitt (it seems to me) is a collectivist, who sees the function of government to increase the welfare of it's citizenry through central planning. I believe that the function of government is to maximize individual liberty as much as possible so that individuals can pursue their welfare as they see fit.

Bitt says he doesn't support dirigibles for 13 year olds because there is no "social value". Says who? Says him, of course. That's the whole problem.

To suggest that self-ownership may be a flawed philosophical concept is to place the value of the collective above the value of the individual. This is the core issue. The mainstream political parties in America place the collective above the individual (differing in how they define "social value"), the libertarian rejects this notion.

Either one of us could be wrong, I suppose, but there is absolutely NO QUESTION which the Founding Fathers believed. The collectivists will respond that these are dated ideas, which is why the Constitution needs to be a living document. The libertarian will say that the Constitution is based on philosophical principles which are just as valid today as they were 200 years ago.

To answer Bitt's question directly: which do I consider to be morally legitimate functions of government? It wouldn't be my *exact* list, but I could live with those functions *explicitly* granted in the Constitution. This would eliminate the vast majority of our federal government.

From a practical point of view, I promise to eat my hat if this reduces the deficit or health care costs one iota.