8 ms·

> "does the federal government belong in the business of telling auto makers what equipment cars must have" > it seems quite clear to me that this is an improp

by andylei 14y ago

> "does the federal government belong in the business of telling auto makers what equipment cars must have" > it seems quite clear to me that this is an improper role of government in an open, free society i'll bite. from a practical perspective, the federal government should have the authority to say what kinds of vehicles should be able to drive on public roads paved by us tax dollars. maybe you think you should be able to drive a car with no headlights, but the other people driving on the highways at 60mph could get hurt. it seems pretty clear that federal government should be in the business of telling car makers that street legal cars have to have headlights. from a theoretical perspective, the commerce clause, taken at face value, seems to give board powers to the federal government to regulate any commerce that happens across state lines. cars are certainly sold across state lines. i don't understand why you think its so clear that the federal government doesn't have this authority.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ericingram 14y ago
As I understand it, the word "regulate" had a different meaning at the time the commerce clause was written. It generally meant "to make regular", as in, prevent states from taxing imports from one state higher than another. Now it essentially means "control".
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  It's convenient that your historical definition lines up perfectly with the ideology of limited government. Do you have a source for it?
- runaway 14y ago
  I can't find any actual citations of the word regulate used to mean "to make regular". The only references I found are in articles trying to explain the Commerce Clause. The word regulate comes from the Latin regulare "to control by rule, direct". I don't see any evidence that the meaning has changed much over time.
mindcrime 14y ago
from a practical perspective, the federal government should have the authority to say what kinds of vehicles should be able to drive on public roads paved by us tax dollars. maybe you think you should be able to drive a car with no headlights, but the other people driving on the highways at 60mph could get hurt. A couple of thoughts: 1. This sounds more like an argument for not building highways with tax money, than an argument for more government power, to me. 2. Liability for the consequences of ones actions should be sufficient to deal with this. If I do drive without headlights for a few miles, or - as far as that goes - 10,000 miles, and nobody is injured, it's totally bogus to claim that a crime has been committed. However, if I drive, without or without headlights, and crash into someone through my own negligence, I should be held liable for that outcome. If we adopted this as a basis for governance, we wouldn't need all these lame statutory "laws" in the first place. 3. Even if headlights are required, a driver might choose to turn them off, or they could be defective or inoperable for some reason. Focusing on the requirement that they simply be present is focusing on the wrong problem even from a practical standpoint. 4. Regardless of what the Constitution, or any other document says, I personally reject the notion that the State has any particular authority at all. Even if you accept Bastiat's extremely minimalist view of "Law as no more than the collective extension to our individual right to self defense" one can still imagine pathological cases where the whole thing reduces to "might makes right". That said, I think Bastiat's view is an ideal to strive towards, as use of force should be limited to situations that could be considered self-defense. Pre-emptive use of force (or threat of force) is invalid, in my world view. Note: I don't expect everyone (or anyone in particular) to agree with me on this, I'm just explaining why I see this as an invalid role for government. Anyway, my point doesn't revolve around me being right or wrong in what I believe on the issue... the point is that this conversation needs to be had in the first place, and that people should quit simply glossing over this stuff and just accepting everything the State sends down the pipe as being valid. "Question authority" should be everyone's mantra in my book, even if they decide that the answer to the question is "yes" on a particular occasion.
- jellicle 14y ago
  You know, Somalia - a proper Libertarian paradise - has an open immigration policy. What are you waiting for?

by andylei 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ericingram 14y ago

As I understand it, the word "regulate" had a different meaning at the time the commerce clause was written. It generally meant "to make regular", as in, prevent states from taxing imports from one state higher than another. Now it essentially means "control".

mkr-hn 14y ago
It's convenient that your historical definition lines up perfectly with the ideology of limited government. Do you have a source for it?
runaway 14y ago
I can't find any actual citations of the word regulate used to mean "to make regular". The only references I found are in articles trying to explain the Commerce Clause. The word regulate comes from the Latin regulare "to control by rule, direct". I don't see any evidence that the meaning has changed much over time.

mindcrime 14y ago

from a practical perspective, the federal government should have the authority to say what kinds of vehicles should be able to drive on public roads paved by us tax dollars. maybe you think you should be able to drive a car with no headlights, but the other people driving on the highways at 60mph could get hurt. A couple of thoughts: 1. This sounds more like an argument for not building highways with tax money, than an argument for more government power, to me. 2. Liability for the consequences of ones actions should be sufficient to deal with this. If I do drive without headlights for a few miles, or - as far as that goes - 10,000 miles, and nobody is injured, it's totally bogus to claim that a crime has been committed. However, if I drive, without or without headlights, and crash into someone through my own negligence, I should be held liable for that outcome. If we adopted this as a basis for governance, we wouldn't need all these lame statutory "laws" in the first place. 3. Even if headlights are required, a driver might choose to turn them off, or they could be defective or inoperable for some reason. Focusing on the requirement that they simply be present is focusing on the wrong problem even from a practical standpoint. 4. Regardless of what the Constitution, or any other document says, I personally reject the notion that the State has any particular authority at all. Even if you accept Bastiat's extremely minimalist view of "Law as no more than the collective extension to our individual right to self defense" one can still imagine pathological cases where the whole thing reduces to "might makes right". That said, I think Bastiat's view is an ideal to strive towards, as use of force should be limited to situations that could be considered self-defense. Pre-emptive use of force (or threat of force) is invalid, in my world view. Note: I don't expect everyone (or anyone in particular) to agree with me on this, I'm just explaining why I see this as an invalid role for government. Anyway, my point doesn't revolve around me being right or wrong in what I believe on the issue... the point is that this conversation needs to be had in the first place, and that people should quit simply glossing over this stuff and just accepting everything the State sends down the pipe as being valid. "Question authority" should be everyone's mantra in my book, even if they decide that the answer to the question is "yes" on a particular occasion.

jellicle 14y ago
You know, Somalia - a proper Libertarian paradise - has an open immigration policy. What are you waiting for?