
Peter Nelson posted a very eloquent response to this point in 
talk.politics.misc, so I need not consume more bandwidth here.



What I meant, if it was not clear, was the intersection set of liberal
and libertarian philosophies of "natural rights" and how the government
(and Constitutional interpretation in particular) fits into that 
philosophy.  This philosophy engages in the very serious practical 
error of endowing the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court with an almost 
totalitarian authority, completely outside of the consent or consensus 
of The People.  This is why Supreme Court nominations are such amazing
political fist-fights these days, because He who Controls the Court
Rules the Country.  The people on the Court may well be trying to do
the best job they can, but they are at best a benevolent oligarch, even
if you approve of every Supreme Court decision ever.  Eventually, an
oligarch will arise that will decimate that which you hold dear.  Try 
Supreme Court cases by Jury, and the problem would be mitigated a great 
deal.

Those who would create broad, non-enumerated government powers at any 
level (as in European Parlamentary Democracies and the current de-facto
standard in the U.S.) have essentially engaged in the same fundamental 
mistake, except that it is some different body that has the totalitarian, 
virtually unchecked (except by plurality election, death, or retirement), 
government power. 



This is like asking why the wind blows, unless you can prove that
the fact of your engaging in certain activities has absolutely no 
effect whatsoever on any other human being who has not consented to
your engagement in those activities.  Very few human activities indeed
fit into this category.  

Even for those few that do, who would you empower to make the judgement 
of what is and is not a fully autonomous activity?  Who defines "picking 
my pocket" and "defrauding"?  Are economic assets a person's only assets,
or are peace of mind, stability, confidence in a child's emotional 
environment, security, and many other things not also a part of a person's
assets?  What gives you the right to create a moral environment that a
parent strongly objects to?  What gives you the right to create an 
environment of social unrest and instability?  If you say that what you
do does not have those effects, by what authority do you say that?  Who
is empowered to make these value judgements?



If the Federal Constitution explicitly prohibited you from doing so, the 
federal government would prevent you from doing so.  If it did not, and
you could muster enough local support to pass an amendment to the local
Constitution (by, say, a 3/4 majority) empowering the local government 
to do so, then I would have to vote with my feet and move to a neighborhood
more friendly to my own system of values.  This is not an ideal situation,
but it is far better than the mess we are mired in right now.



When you define "rights" very broadly, there is no practical choice about 
whether people will or will not infringe upon your rights since these
"rights" overlap.  Even when rights are defined very narrowly, the government 
has been empowered to prevent others from infringing on your rights.  The 
fundamental question is, by whose authority is that power created.  If you 
support the current situation with a "natural rights" Supreme Court (rather
than an "original understanding" Supreme Court or, even better, Supreme
Court by Jury), you are consenting to having nine lawyers in Washington, 
D.C. create those powers out of the air.  In my "Fractal Federalism" scenario, 
it is a broad consensus of The People (i.e. the amendment process) that 
creates those powers.



No, I mean the federal government that comes trucking in with guns to
tell the locals how to run their neighborhood.  Waco, TX is a nice example.



If you create a community where public masturbation is permitted in the 
cause of "personal autonomy", have you done anything different?  What
precisely are these autonomous activities you are referring to?  If you
list them, perhaps we can get enough people to agree that they are truly
autonomous and pass a constitutional amendment protecting them.




The Koresh Incident appears to be a horrendous abuse of government power,
power possibly illegitimately obtained through a means I would abolish. 
The constitutionality of "no-knock" warrants seems very dubious to me, not
to mention the mere existence of BATF and the government's propensity to 
ignore the word "infringe" in the Second Amendment.  This power is upheld 
by the same body, with its incredible concentration of power in the hands 
of nine people, that has upheld much so-called "Civil Rights" (read- affirmative 
action) legislation despite the Fourteenth Amendment.



Money is certainly not the only asset I have in this world.  If it were,
this would be a bleak existence indeed.




Matt Freivald


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LiBORGalism:
             THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT.
          FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT.
                 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT.
                     CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE.
                      YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!