Comments on: The Ninth Amendment Case Against Libertarianism? http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/01/the-ninth-amendment-case-against-libertarianism/ A Stitch in Time Saves Nine ... But Haste Makes Waste Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:02:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Blawg Review #190 - Bill of Rights Day « The Legal Satyricon http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/01/the-ninth-amendment-case-against-libertarianism/comment-page-1/#comment-8123 Blawg Review #190 - Bill of Rights Day « The Legal Satyricon Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:43:54 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=2006#comment-8123 [...] of “unenumerated” Civil Rights to the people (see some of his past posts on the subject, here; here; and, [...] [...] of “unenumerated” Civil Rights to the people (see some of his past posts on the subject, here; here; and, [...]

]]> By: Allan Beatty http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/01/the-ninth-amendment-case-against-libertarianism/comment-page-1/#comment-1759 Allan Beatty Sun, 22 Jan 2006 03:24:25 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=2006#comment-1759 The people <b>did</b> act to make it so -- they ratified the Ninth Amendment. The people did act to make it so — they ratified the Ninth Amendment.

]]> By: Gabriel Mihalache http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/01/the-ninth-amendment-case-against-libertarianism/comment-page-1/#comment-1758 Gabriel Mihalache Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:42:53 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=2006#comment-1758 There's a large degree of truth to what you're saying but I'm skeptical. For example, those enumerated powers of the State can be such as to restrict all meaningful freedom. The framework by itself is not enough. The USSR could be possible under this restriction. <br /> <br /> You can say that if the State does not have a power, explicitly, then people ought to be free, unconditionally. At this point you must make your case about the powers you want invested in the State. (dare I dream you'll say "none"?) <br /> <br /> <i>[Kip replies: Dream on. I'm not an anarchist. For the time being can't I just answer "fewer than are currently presumed by those in power and their apologists"?]</i> There's a large degree of truth to what you're saying but I'm skeptical. For example, those enumerated powers of the State can be such as to restrict all meaningful freedom. The framework by itself is not enough. The USSR could be possible under this restriction.

You can say that if the State does not have a power, explicitly, then people ought to be free, unconditionally. At this point you must make your case about the powers you want invested in the State. (dare I dream you'll say "none"?)

[Kip replies: Dream on. I'm not an anarchist. For the time being can't I just answer "fewer than are currently presumed by those in power and their apologists"?]

]]>