Constitutional Law

The New Republic's Lame Attack on Libertarian Constitutionalism

|

Cass Sunstein, the liberal Harvard law professor and former Obama administration official recently haunted by the specter of "paranoid libertarianism," has penned a lengthy review in The New Republic of The Classical Liberal Constitution, the latest book from pioneering libertarian law professor Richard Epstein. Titled, "The Man Who Made Libertarians Wrong About the Constitution," it is, unsurprisingly, not a rave review.

"If the Supreme Court agreed with [Epstein], our constitutional law, and our nation, would be altogether different," Sunstein writes. "We would be a lot closer to what he calls a system of laissez-faire, with a far weaker national government and a more robust set of rights against federal and state interference with private property and contract." What's more, Sunstein says, even if Epstein is correct to view the Constitution as a classical liberal document, that still does not mean the rest of the legal world should follow suit. As Sunstein puts it,

even if we did accept [Epstein's libertarian] creed, we would have to ask whether federal judges, with their limited place in our constitutional order, should insist on it. Consider in this regard the cautionary words of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: "If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It's my job."

Unhappily for Sunstein, his own allies on the left are already guilty of disregarding Justice Holmes' legal advice when it comes to such things as gay rights and abortion, two areas of the law where progressives have no problem with federal judges assuming a less limited place in our constitutional order and striking down democratically enacted statutes.

And why would they follow Holmes' advice? According to Holmes, who sat on the Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932, "a law should be called good if it reflects the will of the dominant forces of the community even if it will take us to hell."

That deferential standard led Holmes to vote in favor government action in all sorts of troubling contexts, from a state law forbidding a private school teacher from instructing young children in a foreign language to the state of Virginia's desire to forcibly sterilize a teenage girl who had been raped and impregnated by the nephew of her foster mother. "We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives," Holmes wrote in that latter case, known as Buck v. Bell. "It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices." Thanks to Holmes, the state's eugenics law was upheld and the sterilization procedure was performed.

Sunstein's mileage may vary, but I'll take Epstein's system of laissez-faire over Holmes' submission to state power any day.

NEXT: When Drug Warriors Burn a Baby, Who's the Terrorist?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wasn’t Sunstein the genius who thought animals should have rights?

    1. Wasn’t Sunstein the genius who thought animals should have rights?

      I’m sure the hamsters on the wheel in his head, and the gerbils up his ass, would all likely cheer if he could make that happen

    2. Non-human animals should have rights. Definitely not all the rights a human animal would have but they deserve some level of respect in most circumstances.

      1. They do have rights. The right to get into my belly!

        1. Animals include those you probably don’t want to eat. “This here is the hyper-poisonous snot-worm…”

          1. Well, that’s assumed. I’m just saying that if they are tasty, they do have the right to get into my belly.

            1. With this commentariat… I can’t take anything for granted.

            2. So, animals’ rights are contingent on Hyperion’s permission, just like we have a right to ask Big Brother’s permission to speak.

      2. All things have the right to be treated as what they are. My thanksgiving turkey dinner has the right to be treated humanely right up until the moment that it goes from being a live turkey to a dead turkey, and the transition should be as quick and painless as possible. That same turkey does not have the right to live out its life pigging out on free food with no fear of predators.

      3. No, they are inferior to humans otherwise they would be feasting on us. It is our job as the top predators to stimulate evolution. If you think the roles were reversed the animal would give two shits about dignity and respect you would be wrong.

        1. No, they are inferior to humans

          So?

          If you think the roles were reversed the animal would give two shits about dignity and respect you would be wrong.

          If the roles were reversed then humans would have no appreciable ability to reason and the other animals would, so many of them would likely hold the view that humans should have certain rights.

      4. Slippery slope. Who says how much is too much? Who decrees enforcement to pick and choose which ones?

        Like the line in the “2010” Space Odyssey movie, “What is it, him or us? I vote us!” The line stops here.

    3. Perhaps so, but that’s irrelevant here.

      1. I WILL DECIDE WHAT DOES APPLY AND DOES NOT APPLY.

  2. OT:

    Josh Earnest

    josh
    j?SH
    informal
    verb
    1. tease (someone) in a playful way.

    ear?nest
    ??rnist
    adjective
    1. resulting from or showing sincere and intense conviction.

  3. If “judicial activism” has any definition other than “any court decision that I don’t like,” the talking heads seem to have no idea of what that definition is.

    1. Judicial activism is a justice actively rewriting a portion of a law so that he can approve of it through his own twisted reimagining of the Constitution. E.G., Roberts and Obamacare, Scalia’s “New Professionalism,” any decision upholding the ability of the goverment to prohibit drug possession or sales.

      1. That’s half of the double-edged sword. The other would be the kind that protects individuals from the EPA et al.

        1. …? Reviewing a law or government action and saying “this doesn’t comply with the Constitution” is not judicial activism, it’s specifically what the Court is supposed to be for.

  4. “We would be a lot closer to what he calls a system of laissez-faire, with a far weaker national government and a more robust set of rights against federal and state interference with private property and contract.”

    Oh, the horror. How would The Collective know who to punish for insufficient fealty?

    1. Yeah, I fail to see the problem.

  5. a far weaker national government and a more robust set of rights against federal and state interference with private property and contract

    The horror!

    The New Republic is a garbage collection of derp. Who cares what anyone at that trash heap is drooling about?

    1. Yeah, I was curious as to why that would be a bad thing.

      TNR is definitely a garbage collection of derp. And Cass Sunstein is festering at the bottom of that garbage heap. What’s sad is that people listen to him.

  6. @gitarfanman @roidubouloi @BernardSmith Are all libertarians so ahistoric. Fascism was a creation of the right, not the left. Even today the champions of privatizing government functions are on the right far more than on the left. Indeed President Wilson had his many faults but he was not fascist. Nor is our current President. I agree that a libertarian won’t kill me for not going along unless he can get away with it because the government is too weak to punish him. But the leaders who take over after the libertarian revolution would be the strongest ,most ruthless, power hungry war lords in the surviving society. They will kill in an instant.Just look at every place on the planet with an extremely weak government for a brief history lesson. Libertarian philosophy has its merits in intellectual debate about the nature of freedom as do communism and its right wing counterpart fascism, for that matter. They all suffer from the same malady. They could only work in reality in a population of perfect people. In case you haven’t noticed, there are none around.

    1. MOTHERFUCKER

      Stupid sons of bitches who don’t know history piss me off. Nevermind that they don’t bother to understand their opponents point of view or represent it in good faith.

      1. It’s not that they don’t know history, it’s that they’re wiling to, ah, correct it if it is inconvenient to their goal.

        1. That idiot doesn’t know history. He’s a goddamn willfully ignorant moron who probably couldn’t identify Germany on a map, let alone define corporatism or fascism.

          1. Besides being taught this nonsense that fascism and Nazism are products of the right, I think a lot of young proggies have picked up on the fact that many libertarians and conservatives are making Jonah Goldberg’s “liberal fascism” argument a lot more frequently these days, and my General Theory of Everything Leftwing says that these idiots rarely take a position out of genuine belief or conviction, but solely to thwart the advance of THE ENEMY, the RWNJ lunatic fringe.

            So I think that guy on TNR was simply sending the signal that he has processed the talking point. Fascism = rightwing, not because of any critical evaluation undertaken, but because the right says fascism is leftwing, and they’re always wrong, so…

            1. “Liberal fascism” is a rhetorical tautology based on the modern usage of the term “liberal”.

              1. True. It’s just the title that Goldberg used, definitely intended to troll the left. And boy did he succeed too. Forced Streisand to cancel her LA Times subscription and still sends proggies into mini conniptions whenever they are confronted with said rhetorical tautology.

                And I am a strong supporter of anything that sends little proggies into epic fits of rage.

    2. TEAM TEAM TEAM PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION

      It’s the same every. Fucking. Time.

    3. I agree that a libertarian won’t kill me for not going along unless he can get away with it

      Yep, this is what they actually believe.

      1. well, maybe in this guy’s example it’s an accurate statement. he did type “me” and not “you.”

      2. Collectivists on the other hand have no problem killing people who won’t go along.

  7. @ContrarianLibertarian @gitarfanman@fbaldy@roidubouloi@BernardSmith

    At its core libertarianism is not at all about the decentralization of power because it adopts an absurd, utopian view about the nature and reality of power. The result of libertarianism if ever actually put into practice would be the creation of extremes of power, gross centralization of power, although nominally not as part of the state. It would amount to the privatization of the state, with more not less centralization of power, and no state responsive to democratic will to counter-balance that power.

    This is why libertarianism is nothing but fascism in drag, indeed the perfection of fascism in just the manner that communism envisioned the withering away of the state. Libertarian invocations of liberty and freedom are a ritual with no more content than invocations of freedom by Nazis.

    1. STOP! The tidal wave of derp threatens to swamp us all!

    2. Holy shit, Warty…get outta the cesspool! People are gonna start thinking your a masochist if you keep reading that stuff. 😉

    3. It’s quite heartening that these retards are starting to worry so much about libertarians.

      1. True. But, dammit, ya gotta read that crap to know it. Yech!!

      2. “The perfection of fascism.” I like it.

        VOTE WARTY/SUGARFREE 2016
        THE PERFECTION OF FASCISM

        1. NOOOOO!

        2. “If you don’t want your fascism to be perfect, then why even bother to vote?”

          I relish the idea of a VP debate. The nation would be verbally concussed when I was through with them.

          1. Fool. He’s just picking you as his second because you’re sickly and nonthreatening.

            1. What I lack in the ability to do physical damage, I make up for in my capacity to inflict mental damage.

              Of course, Warty is no slouch in the mental. He builds robots that cut, rend and sear human flesh–transforming it into works of terrible beauty. And I can swing a bag of doorknobs with the best of them.

            2. SF’s writings will, in comparison, eliminate any consideration of Paul’s newsletter as damaging.

              1. Vote the Doomcock ticket!

      3. They really hate people, don’t they?

    4. It’s going to take me weeks to get back the IQ points I lost, reading that. The last paragraph alone might been enough to induce permanent damage.

      1. I dunno about you, but my invocations of liberty are an empty ritual. Now, would you like to take a ride with me in my FreedomVan?

        1. Aren’t. I mean aren’t. Now get in the van. It has puppies and freedom.

          1. Do the puppies and freedom float?

            1. Float on what? Air? Water? Mercury? Liquid Methane?

              1. No silly, with the balloons.

                1. I got the reference, I was being deliberately obtuse.

                  Slightly off topic, my favorite Curry role is still G Gordon Godfrey.

                  1. Is there anything that Curry wasn’t fantastic in?

            2. They float float down here, RRR.

              1. ::Screams as arm is ripped off::

          2. Do I get candy or a free ride to the Hannah Montana concert?

            1. No, but you can get a chloroform scented candle.

    5. It’s so true! A libertarian government would result in a barren wasteland of environmental destruction where everyone is a slave to some corporation! A feudal system of corporate rule! Liberty is tyranny!

    6. It really sticks in my craw when people think libertarianism is some kind of Utopian ideology. That would be socialism and fascism, dickwads.

      1. Remember, Kristin, projection. Always, always projection.

      2. What could be more Utopian than responding to most questions with, “Ultimately, people will figure it out at the local level with the information, goods and skills available to them”?

        It’s certainly more naive and Utopian than thinking that health care and education can be fixed with more bureaucracy and more money.

        1. Libertarianism doesn’t make the promises that socialism and fascism do. Socialism promises to make everyone equal and we’ll all live in peace and harmony forever and ever. Libertarianism makes no such claims.

      3. Anarchy is utopian.

        Libertarianism isnt.

        Its the fundamental difference between the two.

    7. This is why libertarianism is nothing but fascism in drag…

      Funny, I go to all the meetings. There aren’t any snazzy uniforms, hell, there are no uniforms at all. No national greatness ideology. No racial superiority. No mass rallies in stadia…

      Libertarian invocations of liberty and freedom are a ritual with no more content than invocations of freedom by Nazis.

      Wow, he just pulled a Godwin. Now if one of us accused him of that, there’d be hell to pay.

      1. Funny, I go to all the meetings. There aren’t any snazzy uniforms, hell, there are no uniforms at all.

        Maybe we can convince jesse and Sugarfree to collaborate on a design that will both dazzle our enemies and haunt their dreams.

    8. Nazis didn’t invoke freedom.

      In fact, they were quite upfront about what they saw as the deficiencies of freedom.

      They specifically stated their intention to build up the power of the state to counter the failings of freedom. Failings that sound quite similar to those identified by that poster.

      1. Hitler was at his most contemptuous towards the Kadets – the closest thing Weimar Germany had to a classical liberal party.

  8. “If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job.”

    How wrong can he be?

    1) It’s not his job to help anybody, it’s his job to make sure that the law is within the bounds of the Constitution.

    2) If an individual wants to go to hell (for example become a crack addict eating out of trash cans and living on the street) is it still his job to help him?

    3) If an individual wants to go to hell, said individual has no authority to drag me along with him.

    1. For statist authoritarians like Sunstein, this IS hell:

      “We would be a lot closer to what he calls a system of laissez-faire, with a far weaker national government and a more robust set of rights against federal and state interference with private property and contract.

    2. How wrong can he be?

      It was OWH, Jr. There isnt a limit to how wrong he could be.

      1. It stuns me when anyone quotes Holmes. He is universally regarded as the worst justice in history, right?

  9. “It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices.”

    I don’t think I’ve ever read this particular piece of fascism from Holmes. What a scumbag he was.

    Sterilizing rape victims is the civilization that our taxes pay for.

    1. You know who else was concerned about sapping our strength (aka precious bodily fluids)?

      1. Linda Lovelace?

  10. ” “We would be a lot closer to what he calls a system of laissez-faire, with a far weaker national government and a more robust set of rights against federal and state interference with private property and contract.”

    Is this supposed to be a criticism?

    1. Yes! The state needs to interfere with private property and contract in order to make things fair! Otherwise the rich get richer and the poor get screwed! You want the rich having all the property and dictating all the terms? That’s what would happen in Libertopia! A few rich people controlling everything while everyone else lives in poverty! Liberty is tyranny!

    2. In the author’s mind, yes.

      And that is why one can not have an intelligent conversation with him. His premises are so completely wrong there is no common ground to start with.

    3. It is to his readers.

  11. No common ground to start from?
    Has the world come between us?
    Have our lives come between us?
    Are we falling apart?

    1. But what about Breakfast at Tiffany’s?

    2. Can we meet? On common ground?

  12. I used to be a libertarian but now I recognize reality. The reality that the amount of wealth someone is able to create in a free market system, and the amount of money they are paid and get to keep for themselves, is determined more than anything by the actions of other people in that society. Libertarians will admit this, but then they turn around and demand total individualism, assuring themselves that the system of individualism will create the most wealth. Here is an example involving the most important issue in the world, immigration. Suppose you have a Nigerian construction worker in Nigeria. In Nigeria he makes 4$s a day. Suppose he moves to America and gets the same construction worker job and starts making 80$ a day. What just happened? The work he did did not change, what changed was the SOCIETY he lived in, the OTHER PEOPLE in the society and how they behaved versus how the Nigerians behaved. The society is more important than the worker, the society is inherently valuable. This is why there is an economic rational for national preservation. Libertarian economic theory treats the global economy as just a collection of competing individuals doing jobs and creating X amount of value. Therefore they say the most efficient system is one in which there is maximum competition across national borders. What it doesn’t take into account is that the nations themselves factor in massively to how much wealth an individual can create.

    1. C+

      1. C+? Really? A C+ implies some effort and perhaps a glimpse of understanding. This is clearly a D-.

        1. I’m using our other trolls as a reference. Grading on a curve.

    2. So you’re complaining that people are better off here than elsewhere. OK…

      1. I recognize why they are better off here than elsewhere.

        1. Is it because you are a pathetic sack of rancid dogfuck, you fascist shitlicker?

          1. You forgot ahistorical bootlicking authoritarian-wannabe dweeb.

            AKA progressive.

          2. You call me fascist like it’s a bad thing.

            1. Hey, Tulpa! We know you’re lurking…

              See what fine company you keep?

            2. Lookee here, Tony’s got a new handle!

              1. Sounds like ‘Murican to me.

            3. “Fascist” would imply some cogent sort of national policy, even if it’s horrendously misguided. Yours is simply xenophobia given a patina of economic verbiage. You don’t rank among fascists. You’re a camp-follower among fascists.

        2. Because restrictive trade policies elsewhere prohibit their people from using comparative advantage to better their lives?

          1. Exactly.

            1. So why do you advocate for more restrictive trade policies at home? That will make us poorer.

              1. Protective tariffs are as much applications of force as are blockading squadrons, and their object is the same?to prevent trade. The difference between the two is that blockading squadrons are a means whereby nations seek to prevent their enemies from trading; protective tariffs are a means whereby nations attempt to prevent their own people from trading. What protection teaches us, is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war.

                Because progressivism is misanthropy incarnated in political philosophy.

    3. OK… go on. I’m waiting for the conclusion.

      1. Oh, ‘Merican. Nevermind.

    4. Fuck utilitarianism.

      Do any anti-libertarians actually understand the concept of deontology?

    5. Re: Lorrentz,

      I used to be a libertarian but now I recognize reality.

      Here again, world, we have a numskull who confuses the ought with the is.

      “I can’t be against murder now that I see murders every day!” Yeah, that kind of logic.

      The reality that the amount of wealth someone is able to create in a free market system, and the amount of money they are paid and get to keep for themselves, is determined more than anything by the actions of other people in that society.

      Oh, spare me! Are you really basing your argument on the thoroughly debunked Labor Theory of Labor?

      Libertarian economic theory treats the global economy as just a collection of competing individuals doing jobs and creating X amount of value.

      There’s no such thing as a “Libertarian economic theory”. There’s Free Market economics, there’s Marxism, there’s Keyensianism, etc. NONE of which, by the way, say that there’s a collection of competing individuals doing jobs and making “X” wealth.

      1. The reality that the amount of wealth someone is able to create in a free market system, and the amount of money they are paid and get to keep for themselves, is determined more than anything by the actions of other people in that society.

        Oh, the “you didn’t build that” apologia for theft.

        1. Thank you for the tl;dr summary.

    6. Suppose you have a Nigerian construction worker in Nigeria. In Nigeria he makes 4$s a day

      Your whole position is a rather futile attempt at logic, but consider the following: 4 American dollars are worth A LOT MORE in Nigeria, or some other third-world country than it is in the US. Therefore, that example is entirely disingenuous. I can’t believe that the “they are only paid $X.XX a day/week/year” argument would fly anywhere, let alone here. That is all.

    7. OK, but the key point is that he emigrated to the right country, so his own choice was responsible for his success. Probably you should’ve set up a better example.

  13. I love it when they quote Oliver “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” Wendell Jones. Fuck off, slavers.

    1. Holmes, not Jones.

      OWJ was the Bloom County character.

      1. Dammit, robc, you are right. My bad.

        [sticks out tongue, bugs out eyes] “Ack.”

      2. OWJ was much better than OWH.

        1. How about Oliver Wendell Wilkie Holmes Douglas? Or was it Mendel?

      3. What about Capt. Oliver Harmon Jones? They called him “Spearchucker” because he used to throw the javelin.

  14. To get libertarianism to actually work requires utopian beliefs, such as:

    1. Private charity will replace all the welfare functions of the state. It won’t look like India with extremes of wealth and poverty, with disabled people and children begging for money on the street.
    2. Libertarianism will create so much economic growth that the end of redistribution will not make the poor poorer.
    3. Terrorism won’t ever happen without the state provoking it.
    4. The amount of resources that can be extracted from nature is directly proportional to the amount of human brainpower put into extracting them.
    5. All the human races have exactly the same predisposition to intelligence and morality.

    1. I forgot the sixth:

      6. Cartels and monopolies cannot occur absent government intervention.

      1. See above, do you have no clue about deontology?

      2. 6. Cartels and monopolies cannot occur absent government intervention.

        They cannot. How would they?

    2. 4. The amount of resources that can be extracted from nature is directly proportional to the amount of human brainpower put into extracting them.

      No, actually, my utopian belief is that the amount of resources that can be extracted from nature is in a geometric, and not directly proportional, relationship to the amount of human brainpower applied to the problem.

      Actually, I might go beyond that, and say that it’s not only geometric to the brainpower applied in any time frame, but to the accumulated brainpower applied over all time.

    3. 1. Yes to the premise, but unless you have a crystal ball you can’t accurately predict that. And if it does, it’s because people like you would rather yap on the internet than use your own time and money to relieve those people. Some libertarians may join you in that but it will be an individual choice, not a government mandate.

      2) Again, crystal ball.

      3) Crystal ball, yet again. Also, national defense and police are compatible with most versions of libertarianism. What you won’t see is decades-long occupation of countries, etc, etc.

      4) Uh maybe, but that has nothing to do with libertarianism, or statism, or pastafarianism.

      5) Again, nothing whatsoever to do with libertarianism.

      For a self-declared “ex-libertarian” you don’t seem to have ever really engaged the arguments.

    4. Re: Lorrentz,

      To get libertarianism to actually work requires utopian beliefs, such as:
      1. Private charity will replace all the welfare functions of the state. It won’t look like India with extremes of wealth and poverty, with disabled people and children begging for money on the street.

      India is mainly a socialist country. Has been for decades since it stopped being a British colony.

      2. Libertarianism will create [sic] so much economic growth[…]

      You know, it is very difficult and frustrating to explain things to you when you torture the concepts in that grotesque way. For starters, concepts don’t create things. Humans do. You keep confusing a political philosophy – libertarianism – with economics. You can have a very unlibertarian government that imposes strict rules of conduct – like Blue Code laws – and still have economic freedom. Libertarianism only holds freedom as the greatest possible political goal. That’s it. It says nothing about having economic freedom only.

    5. 1. Private charity will replace all the welfare functions of the state.

      Considering that the vast majority of welfare spending never makes it into the hands of the poor, this isn’t as heavy a lift as you imagine. Especially when you consider that maybe all the welfare functions of the state don’t need to be replaced.

      2. Libertarianism will create so much economic growth that the end of redistribution will not make the poor poorer.

      Considering that most redistribution does not go to the poor in the first place, this may not, again, be as heavy a lift as you imagine.

      3. Terrorism won’t ever happen without the state provoking it.

      What does this have to do with libertarianism, exactly?

      4. The amount of resources that can be extracted from nature is directly proportional to the amount of human brainpower put into extracting them.

      Again, I don’t see the link to libertarianism, or even why this is a utopian belief. As knowledge and technological prowess accumulate, this strikes me as largely true. Exhibit A: fracking.

      5. All the human races have exactly the same predisposition to intelligence and morality.

      Again, I don’t see the link to libertarianism, or even why this is a utopian belief.

      6. Cartels and monopolies cannot occur absent government intervention.

      I am unaware of a single cartel or monopoly that lasted any length of time without state support. Examples?

    6. 1. Private charity will replace all the welfare functions of the state. It won’t look like India with extremes of wealth and poverty, with disabled people and children begging for money on the street.

      Yeah, India is a free market paradise.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..s_in_India

      Moron.

      2. Libertarianism will create so much economic growth that the end of redistribution will not make the poor poorer.

      It will make some bureaucrats poorer. It may make some current cronies poorer. It will likely make Walmart poorer, which I’d think people like you would applaud. But the actual poor will benefit from it.

      3. Terrorism won’t ever happen without the state provoking it.

      Non sequitur. But there will be less terrorism, and individuals and communities will deal with it much more effectively than the federal behemoth.

      4. The amount of resources that can be extracted from nature is directly proportional to the amount of human brainpower put into extracting them.

      History has proven something close to this, if you make it coherent and not a straw man. Malthusians and luddites have been proven wrong time and time again.

      5. All the human races have exactly the same predisposition to intelligence and morality.

      And a racist non sequitur. What does this have to do with anything?

    7. 1. Considering that India is hardly a libertarian fantasyland, and India looks like, well, India, I don’t think it’s libertarians who have to justify anything.

      2. not going to bother with this one except to note that there are about a billion assumptions baked into it

      3. I have no idea what this has to do with libertarianism, or who has ever claimed this. I do think that humanity would, overall, be more peaceful without the existence of massive organizations which owe their very existence to coercion.

      4. Huh?

      5. Oh, so you’re a racist too. Charming.

  15. 5. All the human races have exactly the same predisposition to intelligence and morality.

    I know which sockpuppet you are!

    1. Dead giveaway

    2. Yeah, it just became very clear.

      I was hoping American’s Thai sex slave had finally bitten his small, crooked and malodorous dick off and he bled out.

      1. Sigh, and I responded twice.

        I should have known.

        1. If it’s any help, he’ll be deleted soon enough and you will just look like a crazy person making out of context comments.

          1. Actually, yeah, that helps.

          2. That’s why I copied his screed into my reply.

      2. Gangrenous tissue can’t bleed…

        1. And it’s comments like this why I love this place.

        2. Gangrenous tissue ain’t got time to bleed…

          White Power idiots are always hung like a mosquito. It’s that potent black member that haunts their dreams that fills them with so much hate. Or is that just a frothy stew of lust and shame?

    3. In his defense he’s probably projecting his predisposition’s on others. It’s not so much a defense as an explanation for his abhorrent views.

    4. Crap, I missed that. Fuck off, ‘merkin.

    5. Who has more sockpuppets: ‘Murican or Tulpa?

      1. What if American is one of Tulpa’s sockpuppets?

        1. Whoa…. that would….explain many things.

  16. we would have to ask whether federal judges, with their limited place in our constitutional order, should insist on it.

    He’s positing that the “libertarian” interpretation of the Constitution becomes the accepted interpretation, so he’s seriously asking whether the federal judges should enforce the Constitution.

    And this man is a leading legal scholar.

    When’s the revolution? I’m gonna a month at least to stock up on ammo. Once that chore is out of the way, I’m ready to go.

    1. The Revolution is scheduled for whenever the majority of Americans get off their asses and realize that no matter which team is in power, the government is built to fuck with them, and no matter which “Top Men” are in charge, it will always do so.

      In other words, it’s never going to happen.

      1. Don’t need a majority.

        Even the American Revolution was divided roughly into thirds, with 1/3 favoring it, 1/3 favoring the King, and 1/3 who just didn’t much care.

        1. More like about 5 % at either end and the vast majority prefer to be left to their lives. This changes once the shooting starts and it becomes difficult to take sides.

          As a further comment, I grew up in an area of New York that was between Tory and Patriot territory and the local historians generally gave it another slant: No one really cared that much who was in charge, but anyone in their corn field was likely to get shot.

  17. We would be a lot closer to what he calls a system of laissez-faire, with a far weaker national government and a more robust set of rights against federal and state interference with private property and contract

    Oh, Sunstein thinks that’s bad.

  18. I only object to the title. Sunstein isn’t really attacking “civil libertarianism” as noting that it isn’t the prevailing opinion … either in society or the courts. He actually seems quite deferential to Epstein and grants him validity and merit (even while comparing him to theocratic arguments).
    That argument isn’t “lame”, since he’s merely questioning *which* “moral philosophy is warranted. Actually, Sunstein comes off as a philosophical conservative, rather than a liberal.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.