Friday, January 23, 2004
wil writes:
jbay- I got to meet one of those guys who drives the rover. He's as excited as the rest of us are.
I think that's one of the reasons all these missions are so "personal" for people like us . . . the folks who are running the project could easily be part of our gaming groups, or science clubs, or whatever.
And the argument about the Constitution has no place in this thread. Please take it elsewhere.
Posted by wil at January 22, 2004 08:09 PM
in response to:maybe one of the WWdN readers can explain this -- what is the legal basis for the federal government's assertion of a power to conduct space exploration? I thought we had a federal gov't of enumerated powers, and launching space probes isn't in the Constitution, last I read it.
In a less legally technical vein, what is the moral justification for forcibly taxing people so the gov't can spend their money on space projects? why is this a legitimate government expense? how does it help secure our natural rights to have the gov't do these things? if there is a commercial benefit, why wouldn't private persons voluntarily fund such projects (other than, of course, the fact that the taxpayer has already picked up the bill)?
just curious.
Posted by ludwig at January 22, 2004 02:45 PM
ludwig -
Legal basis? It's in the Constitution. It goes like this:
You elect people to represent you in the government. You give them the power to decide for you how much tax you pay and what they can spend it on. If you don't like how they represent you, you vote for someone else next time around.
At some point in time, people who represented a majority of this country voted to create NASA and fund it with tax dollars, hence space travel as a government function.
There are a LOT of things that the government does that aren't in the Constitution. And you give them the power to do it.
Posted by Chris B at January 22, 2004 02:58 PM
I hope you are being ironic, Chris B. While I agree that is the way things work in practice today, that is positively NOT what our Constitution says. It says, "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." That means that the federal gov't can only do what it is empowered to do, and no more. In contrast, what you've described is the classic (and hideous) "tyranny of the majority" scenario, where we have no rights (or property) but what the almighty state graciously suffers us to have. That makes us a nation of grovelers, not free persons.
And, no, I gave them no such power to launch space probes. I gave them the power to maintain a post office, to coin money, etc. (it's all there in Article I). In 1868 (or so), I gave them the power to enforce the 14th Amendment. But, if it's not on the list, I did NOT give it to them, and no one else did, either. The arrogant federal government may have assumed these powers by force, or one part of the gov't may have pretended to "give" it to the other, but that's not exactly legitimate, now is it?
Posted by ludwig at January 22, 2004 03:21 PM
the Constitution because, in the words of Stanley Fish, one of the Left's darling academic postmodernists, everything is policital.
And, things get political really fast whenever a government program costs $15.5 billion (for fiscal 2004). That's $15.5 billion that we the people didn't get to choose how to spend. Washington decided for us.
I also thought it might be about the Constitution because I this site is openly geared toward people who think themselves "politically active and aware" (even if that doesn't include those who "passionately believe in progressive causes.") Unless, of course, being against "freedom from government intrusion" doesn't include opposing the annual seizure of $15.5 billion from the people to spend on projects of questionable and speculative value, especially high-dollar robot projects that never seem to have a money-back guarantee when they crap out in the first ten minutes, and especially those projects that plainly exceed the federal government's legal authority to begin in the first place.
That's how.
I won't presume to tell anyone what to do, but I think you will find the WWdN comments section to be a poor place for an arguement about constitutional law. Actually, argueing anywhere on the internet seems pretty fruitless. Now if you were to write your own essay and post it somewhere appropriate on the web, that might perhaps make people think or even persuade them of something. Just a humble suggestion. YMMV.
Posted
jbay- I got to meet one of those guys who drives the rover. He's as excited as the rest of us are.
I think that's one of the reasons all these missions are so "personal" for people like us . . . the folks who are running the project could easily be part of our gaming groups, or science clubs, or whatever.
And the argument about the Constitution has no place in this thread. Please take it elsewhere.
Posted by wil at January 22, 2004 08:09 PM
in response to:maybe one of the WWdN readers can explain this -- what is the legal basis for the federal government's assertion of a power to conduct space exploration? I thought we had a federal gov't of enumerated powers, and launching space probes isn't in the Constitution, last I read it.
In a less legally technical vein, what is the moral justification for forcibly taxing people so the gov't can spend their money on space projects? why is this a legitimate government expense? how does it help secure our natural rights to have the gov't do these things? if there is a commercial benefit, why wouldn't private persons voluntarily fund such projects (other than, of course, the fact that the taxpayer has already picked up the bill)?
just curious.
Posted by ludwig at January 22, 2004 02:45 PM
ludwig -
Legal basis? It's in the Constitution. It goes like this:
You elect people to represent you in the government. You give them the power to decide for you how much tax you pay and what they can spend it on. If you don't like how they represent you, you vote for someone else next time around.
At some point in time, people who represented a majority of this country voted to create NASA and fund it with tax dollars, hence space travel as a government function.
There are a LOT of things that the government does that aren't in the Constitution. And you give them the power to do it.
Posted by Chris B at January 22, 2004 02:58 PM
I hope you are being ironic, Chris B. While I agree that is the way things work in practice today, that is positively NOT what our Constitution says. It says, "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." That means that the federal gov't can only do what it is empowered to do, and no more. In contrast, what you've described is the classic (and hideous) "tyranny of the majority" scenario, where we have no rights (or property) but what the almighty state graciously suffers us to have. That makes us a nation of grovelers, not free persons.
And, no, I gave them no such power to launch space probes. I gave them the power to maintain a post office, to coin money, etc. (it's all there in Article I). In 1868 (or so), I gave them the power to enforce the 14th Amendment. But, if it's not on the list, I did NOT give it to them, and no one else did, either. The arrogant federal government may have assumed these powers by force, or one part of the gov't may have pretended to "give" it to the other, but that's not exactly legitimate, now is it?
Posted by ludwig at January 22, 2004 03:21 PM
the Constitution because, in the words of Stanley Fish, one of the Left's darling academic postmodernists, everything is policital.
And, things get political really fast whenever a government program costs $15.5 billion (for fiscal 2004). That's $15.5 billion that we the people didn't get to choose how to spend. Washington decided for us.
I also thought it might be about the Constitution because I this site is openly geared toward people who think themselves "politically active and aware" (even if that doesn't include those who "passionately believe in progressive causes.") Unless, of course, being against "freedom from government intrusion" doesn't include opposing the annual seizure of $15.5 billion from the people to spend on projects of questionable and speculative value, especially high-dollar robot projects that never seem to have a money-back guarantee when they crap out in the first ten minutes, and especially those projects that plainly exceed the federal government's legal authority to begin in the first place.
That's how.
I won't presume to tell anyone what to do, but I think you will find the WWdN comments section to be a poor place for an arguement about constitutional law. Actually, argueing anywhere on the internet seems pretty fruitless. Now if you were to write your own essay and post it somewhere appropriate on the web, that might perhaps make people think or even persuade them of something. Just a humble suggestion. YMMV.
Posted
Comments:
Post a Comment
