[Preacherman]

From Townhall.com (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20031014.shtml):

The second American civil war: what it's about

Dennis Prager
October 14, 2003

Whatever your politics, you have to be oblivious to reality to deny that America today is torn by ideological divisions as deep as those of the Civil War era. We are, in fact, in the midst of the Second American Civil War.

Of course, one obvious difference between the two is that this Second Civil War is (thus far) non-violent. On the other hand, there is probably more hatred between the opposing sides today than there was during the First Civil War. And I am not talking about extremists. A senior editor of the respected center-left New Republic just wrote an article titled, "The Case for Bush Hatred," an article that could have been written by writers at most major American newspapers, by most Hollywood celebrities, and almost anyone else left of center. And the conservative hatred of former President Bill Clinton was equally deep.

In general, however, the similarities are greater than the differences. Once again the North and the South are at odds (though many individuals on each side identify with the other). And once again, the fate of the nation hangs in the balance. The two sides' values and visions of America are as incompatible as they were in the 1860s.

For those Americans who do not know what side they are on or who are not certain about what the Second American Civil War is being fought over, I offer a list of the most important areas of conflict.

While the views of many, probably even most, Americans do not fall entirely on either side, the two competing camps are quite distinguishable. On one side are those on the Left -- liberals, leftists and Greens -- who tend to agree with one another on almost all major issues. On the other side are those on the Right -- conservatives, rightists and libertarians -- who agree on stopping the Left, but differ with one another more often than those on the Left do.

Here, then, is Part One of the list of the major differences that are tearing America apart:

The Left believes in removing America's Judeo-Christian identity, e.g., removing "under God" from the Pledge, "In God we trust" from the currency, the oath to God and country from the Boy Scouts Pledge, etc. The Right believes that destroying these symbols and this identity is tantamount to destroying America.

The Left regards America as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty, cradle-to-grave welfare and religion-free life; and it does not believe that there are distinctive American values worth preserving. The Right regards America as the last best hope for humanity and believes that there are distinctive American values -- the unique combination of a religious (Judeo-Christian) society, a secular government, personal liberty and capitalism -- worth fighting and dying for.

The Left believes that impersonal companies, multinational and otherwise, with their insatiable drive for profits, have a profoundly destructive effect on the country. The Right believes that the legal system, particularly trial lawyers, lawsuits and judges who make laws, is the greater threat to American society.

The Left believes multiculturalism should be the ideal for American schools and for government policy. The Right believes that the Americanization of all its citizens is indispensable to the survival of the United States.

The Left believes that the Boy Scouts as currently constituted pose a moral threat to society. The Right believes the Boy Scouts continue to be one of the greatest moral institutions in the country.

The Left believes in equality more than in liberty. The Right believes more in liberty. For example, the Left believes that for the equality's sake, men's clubs must accept women. The Right believes that for liberty's sake, associations must be free to choose their own members.

The Left believes that when schools give out condoms to teenagers, they are promoting safe sex. The Right believes that when schools give out condoms, they are promoting more sex.

The Left believes that poverty, racism and psychopathology cause violent crime. The Right believes a lack of self-control, lack of religious practice and lack of good values are the primary causes of violent crime.

The Left believes that "war is not the answer." The Right believes that war is often the only answer to governmental evil.

Any one of these differences is enough to create an entirely different America. Added together, the differences suggest people who live in different worlds that are on a collision course.

And I have only listed some of the conflicting views.

Next week, in Part Two, I will discuss the other major conflicts making for the Second American Civil War.

[Rebel Gunman HK]

Looking forward to part 2. That was right on!

[teppo-shu]

He forgot to talk about the one thing that unites politicians of ALL persuasions: GREED!

[Dorrin79]

hmm, sort of.

I think it's listing of the Left's beliefs is pretty accurate.

And while it may be correct about the "Right", a lot of the rightist positions listed are certainly NOT those of libertarians, which it lumps into the right.

Still, interesting.

[Joe Demko]

Certainly a very accurate depiction of how the right fondly believes the left to be.
One might, I suppose, find something equally inaccurate from the other POV over Democratic Underground.

I'm getting increasingly motivated to form the Pontius Pilate Party.
Our motto: "I wash my hands of you."

Anybody else who is sick of the posturing and grandstanding being done by control-freak statists who are largely indistinguishable from each other, feel free to form your own local chapter of the PPP.

[DigitalWarrior]

Leftists: Collectivism rocks!

Rightists: Fascism rocks!

Statists: Central Control rocks!

Libertarians: Choice rocks!

Why the hell are Libertarians considered "rightists" in that article? I see a huge tendency to think that Libertarians have a lot in common with Republicans. Yeah, like abortion, gay rights, and drug policy. We are positive fascists.

[fish2xs]

I couldn't disagree more with the following statement:

While the views of many, probably even most, Americans do not fall entirely on
either side, the two competing camps are quite distinguishable. On one side are
those on the Left -- liberals, leftists and Greens -- who tend to agree with one another
on almost all major issues. On the other side are those on the Right -- conservatives
rightists and libertarians -- who agree on stopping the Left, but differ with one another
more often than those on the Left do.

I have always viewed 'the right' as being more collectively in sync within themselves
over topics like: less government, lower taxes, (corporate and individual)welfare
reform, strong defense, tough on crime....

I have always viewed 'the left' as a mishmash of causes: PETA, ELF, teachers union,
(most unions for that matter), anti-gun, anti-capitalism, Jesse Jackson's brotherhood
of victimism....

I have always thought that the glue that holds the left together was their mutual disdain
for 'the right'. While I agree that Arnold-repub's, conservatives, and libertarians have
many differences, they pale in comparison to the hairball of crisis and causes on the
left.

[moa]

I think one major difference between the Right and the Left is economic. The Left believes in redistributing the wealth from those who earned it to those who did not earn it.

The Right believes in creating more wealth to begin with.

[DaveB]

An interesting theory, but I beg to differ.

I believe that the next American civil war will pit the mass of citizens against the 4 or 5 percent of Americans that own most of the Nation's net worth, and those who defend their interests, either as private employees, or as the government.

Another reason to keep your power dry...

db

[Bill Hook]

I believe that the next American civil war will pit the mass of citizens against the 4 or 5 percent of Americans that own most of the Nation's net worth, and those who defend their interests, either as private employees, or as the government.


Oh, Goody!!! Our VERY OWN October Revolution. :rolleyes:


We can all collectively own everything, only this time, 4-5% of the population will be "caretakers" of the People's property. :rolleyes:

[Balog]

Wow, a real live Bolshie! I've never met one of those before.

[rock jock]

Everybody believes their personal political group is different, that they are the only true light in a world of confusion and darkness.

BTW, don't fool yourselves. Libertarians want control as much as anyone else.

[DaveB]

You can also pretend that there's no problem, or that it's just 'those people' who are covetous of what successful people have, or that it's just 'those people' fomenting class warfare...

Or you can open your eyes, dig out your history books, and recognize that what we're seeing is the (so-far attempted) formation of an American aristocracy.

If I remember correctly, the American revolution was a reaction against another, similar aristocracy.... Hmmm...

db

[Standing Wolf]

Why the hell are Libertarians considered "rightists" in that article?

Probably because most journalist types can't grasp the very idea of Libertarianism, which is neither left nor right, but above left and right. Above is a tough concept for lots of people.

[Navy joe]

I believe that the next American civil war will pit the mass of citizens against the 4 or 5 percent of Americans that own most of the Nation's net worth, and those who defend their interests, either as private employees, or as the government.

Umm, America always has and always will have it's share of filthy rich folks. Somebody had to bankroll that revolution you know. Aristocracy implies monetary wealth coupled with social/political position. As long as Bill Gates doesn't try to buy the White House and install himself as emparator I could give a care to what he does. Best check against the fabulously wealthy is to make one clear cut campaign contribution and advertising law. I don't feel a sudden outpouring of collectivist angst to rise up against these folks. Fact is that many of them are better Americans than the clowns we elect sometimes.

Two sides, all encompassing. Entitlement vs. Free. That's eventually it, no political subdivisions. The folks that think they are owed something and want to take it from me through the political apparatus are this country's enemies. Don't matter if they feel they are owed something through their income status, race, hair color, birthplace, union job, or what have you. I think the Bush/Gore election map is a pretty good field guide. This grouping includes antis, you know the ones who want my guns because they are entitled to feel safe. Their leaders want my guns so they can feel safe when they go for the next phase of the plan which prolly involves redistribution of wealth....

[Bill Hook]

There will always be "those people." Once they get power, some of "those people" will become the new aristocracy. Witness the Communist Party members of the former USSR.

The so-called American aristocracy is at least as much meritocracy as aristocracy. Don't stats show that most millionaires in the US are self-made?

Forgive me for saying, but the idea of 95% taking from the 5% is pure horsesh_t and theft by any other name.

[Waitone]

Whatever your politics, you have to be oblivious to reality to deny that America today is torn by ideological divisions as deep as those of the Civil War era. We are, in fact, in the midst of the Second American Civil War. Actually it is the Third American Civil War, the first being what is call the Revolutionary War.

Interesting article, problem is it describes nothing new. These battles have been ongoing for the last 100 years. What is different now falls into 2 categories: First, we now know the battle is ongoing because of the alternative media. In years prior we knew only what the major organs wanted us to know.

Second, the taxpayer is now pushing back. Joe and Martha Sixpack are no longer content to sit back and watch what is happening without taking action. Force was exercised against our civiliization and those citizens who in the past rolled over and went back to sleep suddenly got up and pushed back.

To the point, the current battle over the court system is an example of what will happen. There is a rebellion brewing out there in flyover country and it will start just as soon as the court system goes too far. People are fed up with elitist unaccountable, black robed justices overriding the expressed will of the people. Sooner or later a flame will erupt.

[USGuns]

... that while in the recent past the two opposing parties had more similarities than differences ... one side in particular has drifted the most away from it's previous core values ... and that is the LEFT. :scrutiny:

[telewinz]

Second Civil War? I don't think so. Anger and talk? Maybe but rich or poor its in most people's best interests to toe the line and cope. Our "problems" of today pale in comparison to our past. We are spoiled and somewhat weak as a nation (advanced civilization?) so we complain and whine out of habit. I doubt that there would be enough "combatants" to stage a civil war name calling battle, even then we would insist on have medical teams standing by to treat the sore throats.:barf:

[atek3]

<rant>
ya, uh huh, the right stands for capitalism and free markets, sure. I'll believe it when they cease passing the BIGGEST FARM SUBSIDY BILL IN HISTORY, or how bout massive steel tariffs. How bout the biggest expansion of the medicare boondoggle in decades (aka prescription drug subsidies). Now the bushieviks are rabble rousing about china. Yellow menace, quick throw up tariffs. Unless GW quits playing mr. empire, the US will go the way of the british empire and the 21st century will known as "the century of the greater east asian coprosperity sphere"
</rant>

[Derek Zeanah]

BTW, don't fool yourselves. Libertarians want control as much as anyone else.Care to be more precise?

[DigitalWarrior]

The only control Libertarians want that I can imagine is the power to try to control their own lives.

The Leave Me the Hell Alone party is not a very good apparatus to take control with.

[Chris Rhines]

Hey, I've always wanted to be a tyrannical dictator. Over my own body and my own mind. :D

BTW, don't fool yourselves. Libertarians want control as much as anyone else. This is more a statement of what rock jock wants to be true, rather than what is true. But then again, Harry Browne is still the head of the national LP, isn't he? Perhaps the blind man is seeing for us...

- Chris

[RobW]

The Left regards America as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty, cradle-to-grave welfare and religion-free life

Religion-free life??? Britain STILL has his Government Anglicanian Church, Germany collects the CHURCH TAX for the different confessions (how would you feel having the IRS taking out money of your paycheck for a church of your choice?), Ireland is TOTALLY catholic as good as Poland. Scandinavia is very much protestant since the 30 year war in 1518 - 1548. Italy, with the pope are great followers of the catholic church. Only France has an on and off going separation from state and church (Revolution 1789 off, Napoleon "Consul" off, Napoleon "Emperor" on, and so on and so on.

Well, there are some people in Europe that adopted communism as their religion ("The Party is Always Right").

So much for religion-free life in Europe.

By the way, being a member of an union in Britain (you have to, or you get no job in a lot of trades) you are automatically a member of the Labour Party. Now that's somthing our Totilarists would like! Separation of Pary and Union????

[SodaPop]

Civil War??? Keep an eye on Philadelphia in the next Mayoral election. Somebody threw a fire-bomb into the Republican candidates office a few weeks ago and the media downplayed it.

Civil War catalyst will be Urban vs Suburban.



I'm getting increasingly motivated to form the Pontius Pilate Party.

Interesting.........

That whole trial seems very Relevant in politics these days.

The Democrats in Philadelphia have been shouting, "FREE BARABUS!!" "FREE BARABUS!!!" with this John Street thing. Local Ministers have compared the Jesus Crucifixion, to the FBI persecution of John Street.:rolleyes:

I wash my hands of Philadelphia.

[Tamara]

BTW, don't fool yourselves. Libertarians want control as much as anyone else.

Heh.

Yeah, they can hardly wait to not tell people what to do. ;)

[Moparmike]

You know, I would like to be a tyrannical despotic dictator. For about a week. After that, the de-flowering of virgins, playing around in tanks for my own amusement, restoring freedoms lost, "borrowing" approximately one crap-load of weapons and ammo for my own amusement, embezziling $100k for my own little plot of land in Alaska, and the swimming around in the treasury like Scrooge McDuck, I think I would get kinda bored. After that, I would just make the US ruled by the Constitution and BOR, institute a 1% sales tax for all .gov income, and then say to hell with it.:D :D :D

On the impending war: It wont happen. Most people are too damned lazy to do anything like that. If it does happen, the left will enlist the aid of the armed forces to do so. Or, heaven forbid, arm the welfare recipients for battle. God only knows why they would do such a fooled thing, but it is the left we are talking about. They wouldnt touch a firearm themselves because the guns are evil and could leap up and kill them.:rolleyes:

I would join the "Leave Me The Hell Alone" party. Infact, I will start one tomorrow. Maybe I can run for something.:D

[dustind]

Rock Jock: Would you care to give an example?

I also doubt any civial war is starting.

[Iain]

By the way, being a member of an union in Britain (you have to, or you get no job in a lot of trades)

Not necessarily true.

The article has, as Golgo-13 said, a nice pastiche of what the right believes the left to be.

Increasingly want to join the 'Pilate Party', although there are non-christians who may want to join so can we have a more PC name ;) ?

[Joe Demko]

The Finger-Bowl Party?
Los Lavatores?
The Sccrubby-Dubbies?

What's in a name, anyway? Mainly, I just want the loudmouths who throw around terms like "liberal" and "conservative" as if they have any real meaning anymore to get off it. Just admit that all you really want is for your bunch to be in charge, telling the rest of us how to live. That's what you are all about. The rest is just window dressing.

[Iain]

Was being ironic about Political Correctness. Of course I meant ''although there are christians who may want to join so can we have a more PC name?''

Funny thing is Golgo that I agree with you. It seems that so many of the people who espouse freedom for men as their political system seem to mean 'freedom for men like me', men they feel to be deserving of the freedoms. At the same time they wish to impose certain restrictions on things they deem to be 'immoral'.

What others propose as a political alternative to this is no more attractive.

[rock jock]

Yeah, they can hardly wait to not tell people what to do.
Actually, just the opposite.

Example: libertarians cheered the recent SCOTUS decision striking down the sodomy law in Texas because they want a uniform moral standard that conforms to their own personal philosophical/religious belief construct. Apparently, a community cannot set standards for themslves because offends the sensibilities of the LP. How very hypocritical that they would invoke the power of the federal govt to enforce a viewpoint that they personally agree with, even though it is outside the established parameters of authority granted to the feds by the Constitution. The message is clear from the LP: "you must conform to our way of thinking." But then again, the LP is driven beyond what is Constitutional by their own views, much like the Republicans and Democrats. It is a shame that they cannot stomach a truly Constitutional system wherein the individual states are allowed to call the shots on everything not clearly prohibited to the fed govt (and consequently the states via the 14th). They are wolves in sheep's clothing, no differnt than any other political group.

[Derek Zeanah]

That's a stretch, RJ. Saying "I should have the right to perform any mutually agreeable sex act with my wife/partner/boyfriend/whatever without paying any attention to how others feel about it" is nowhere near "wanting to control others."

It sounds like you're saying my desire to be left alone is an infringement on the rights of others to control my personal behavior. It ain't. They don't have that right.

"Control" is when I stand up and say "everyone needs to adopt my stand on sodomy, and I have an issue with this whole missionary-position traditional-sex-partner thing." No libertarian wants that. The libs just want to be left alone.

[rock jock]

Derek,

Your post is a reflection of your personal beliefs concerning the issue of rights. We have hashed what constitutes a "right" on this board ad naseum and usually the discussion degrades to a contest of name calling so I want to avoid another debate on this issue. Suffice it to say that the Constitution was designed, at least IMO, to accomodate different philosophies, even those w/ regard to rights. The exception are those rights expressly protected within the Constitution. Those can't be touched. Other so-called "rights" are up in the air (like privacy, for instance) and should be left to the states to decide. The LP, along with the Democrats and Republicans, cannot seem to abide by this simple principle. They all, and I mean all, want to manipulate the Constitution to fit their pre-conceived vision of the perfect society. In this sense, the LP is no different than the power brokers already in office.

Why is it so difficult to live by the Constitution as its written? It truly is the solution that would accomodate every philosophy - pro-life, pro-choice, legalize/criminalize drugs, allow/prohibit sodomy, allow/prohibit same-sex marriages, etc. BUT, its not enough to live in a state that conforms to your own personal viewpoint, everyone else has got to conform to it also.:confused:

[Derek Zeanah]

Suffice it to say that the Constitution was designed, at least IMO, to accomodate different philosophies, even those w/ regard to rights.I agree. That's the whole point of the document.

The exception are those rights expressly protected within the Constitution. Those can't be touched. Other so-called "rights" are up in the air (like privacy, for instance) and should be left to the states to decide.I disagree here. See:Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The LP, along with the Democrats and Republicans, cannot seem to abide by this simple principle. They all, and I mean all, want to manipulate the Constitution to fit their pre-conceived vision of the perfect society. In this sense, the LP is no different than the power brokers already in office.Sigh.

No. The LP advocates an all-encompassing policy of "you leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone, as much as possible. Where this isn't possible, let's go for as little intrusion as we can." The constitution was designed to create a central government that only had enough power to accomplish a limited set of goals. It may have failed at that goal, but that was the stated purpose.

Example: I say it's not OK for Alabama (born there, will probably live there again) to pass a law limiting marriage to those of the same race. It ain't right, and the ninth amendment covers it. The same goes for sexual practices, religious practices not covered by the 1st amendment, gardening and consumption practices, etc.

As far as I can tell, that's in line with the constitution. Saying you have a right to control my actions in all matters other than those few issues listed in the first few amendments of the bill of rights is, ummm, wrong.

Saying so is not trying to control others. Well, maybe trying to stop others from controlling me qualifies as control in its own right, but isn't that the same as calling the homeowner who shoots an intruder the "initiator of violence," since he pulled the trigger first?

Why is it so difficult to live by the Constitution as its written?You answer first. Please take the 9th amendment into account when composing your answer.

Thanks.

[rock jock]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Question Derek: which rights are referred to by the term "others retained by the people"? Who determines those rights? Does it mean that you can do anything you want, or are there limits on your personal behavior? Doers it exclude the rights of communities to set standards? Now, I am sure that you have an answer at the ready, but I would caution you that you cannot answer that question without invoking some frame of reference for the definition of "rights". At this point, your personal political/religious philosopy enters the game and by setting a single standard for the definition of "rights" that is applicable for all states, you are no longer allowing the accomodation of other viewpoints.

The LP advocates an all-encompassing policy of "you leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone
Right, thats what they wanted for Texas - to be left alone.:rolleyes:

[Tamara]

Does it mean that you can do anything you want, or are there limits on your personal behavior?

As long as it infringes on nobody else's rights (and I mean real rights), then, yes.

Tell me, do you think a "community" has the right to tell you what you can do on your property when nobody else is around? It takes a village to tell someone how to behave in their own room? Can a community make you bow down to a graven image with a simple majority, or would it take a two-thirds majority, or would that be wrong, no matter what majority voted for it?

[rock jock]

and I mean real rights
Well, I'm glad you clarified that for us. "Real rights" are those that Tamara approves of.

Can a community make you bow down to a graven image with a simple majority, or would it take a two-thirds majority, or would that be wrong, no matter what majority voted for it?
I know a strictly Constitutional system is confusing, so let me be of some assistance. The First Amendment prohibits the govt. from establishing a religion.

Tell me, do you think a "community" has the right to tell you what you can do on your property when nobody else is around?
In some cases, yes. I know that offends your sensibilities, but I really don't care.

(now is about the time that rational debate is abandoned in favor of name calling)

[BigG]

Standing Wolf: libertarians... above left and right... Snort. Guffaw. :D Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day!

Imho, a bunch of wannabe hippies/beatniks/other non-comformists who can't articulate how they are going to bring about their *cough* cough* utopia.

[Kaylee]

(now is about the time that rational debate is abandoned in favor of name calling)

...a bunch of wannabe hippies/beatniks/other non-comformists....

Wow! right on cue!:scrutiny:

keep it clean folks.

-K

[Thumper]

Tell me, do you think a "community" has the right to tell you what you can do on your property when nobody else is around?

Nope...not in most cases. But what if I'm contaminating the groundwater, for instance?

[Cosmoline]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me, do you think a "community" has the right to tell you what you can do on your property when nobody else is around?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In some cases, yes. I know that offends your sensibilities, but I really don't care.
----

The debate in a nutshell. Personally, I find the notion that a "community" can dictate my private life disgusting, whether it's soccer moms trying to take my iron or bluehaired conservatives trying to take my booze. Leaving people alone is so easy and simple, yet it seems that a great many in this country find it an impossible task.

[Cosmoline]

"Nope...not in most cases. But what if I'm contaminating the groundwater, for instance?"

Then the neighboring property owners and those who have rights to the water would be able to sue. Groundwater doesn't just stay in one spot.

[Derek Zeanah]

I think Tamara has it. It doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me, actually. I'm surprised you're having a lot of trouble with it.

"Control others" versus "leave people alone." They aren't the same.

Maybe the communication problem is a manifestation of the differences of opinion this thread was referencing. Example:

I had a friend in college who was Palestinian (with a Jordinian passport). She was smart -- landed a job as a secretary working for US troops in Gulf War I and started by matching symbols; from there she learned english and found her was over to a scholarship to a small US private school.

But she couldn't get government. She understood monarchies and dictatorships, but the concept of representative government didn't register with her at all. Add in the complexities of 2 houses, an executive branch, a court system, and a teacher who liked to use terms he hadn't intruduced in class (like "bicameral legislature") and she didn't have a chance at passing a government class, regardless of the hours I spent tutoring her.

She just didn't get the concept of representative government. It may be the same deal with you -- the concept of leaving others to handle their own affairs without interference (provided they don't infringe on your affairs/personal space in the mean-tim) might be so "out there" that you can't use your normal models to understand it. That's cool, but we get to the point where further discussion is useless.

I believe I have certain rights: to sleep with who I want (my wife in my case, but that's not right for everyone), the right to grow whatever plants I want and consume them however I choose to (this included the poppy), to ferment whatever I want, worship whatever God I choose in whatever manner I choose (the God of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohommad in my case, but it's my choice), the right to own whatever arms I feel I want to own (even military arms like mortars and RPG's), the right to build an airplane from scratch and fly over the Atlantic on my first test-run (though even I'm not that stupid), the right to keep my finances and personal communications private, the right to start a business providing whatever services I believe will sell well (including sex, though in my case I think I'd suffer from a lack of clients),the right to drive my car as fast as it can go, and so on, and so forth. Pretty much anything I feel like doing.

The exceptions are things that infringe on the rights of others: driving while under the influence of heroin puts others at risk, so is a no-no. Fermenting bio-agents puts neighbors at risk and is a no-no. While I have a right to own 2,000 lbs of C4, that doesn't give me the right to store it above-ground ina residential neighborhood. I don't have the right to sell sex if I'm HIV positive unless I disclose this up-front to my clients. I can't sacrifice my neighbor's puppy to God -- I'll need to get my own puppy for that. Etc.

Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't have a negative effect on others.

Just note that Miss Bessy-Mae being disturbed by the mental imagery of two men engaging in sodomy does not give her the right to legislate how two men behave together in private.

[Thumper]

Exactly, Cosmo, but no amount of "sue-age" (I kill me) changes the fact that the water table is now hosed.

Do you need a community law?

[Derek Zeanah]

I know a strictly Constitutional system is confusing, so let me be of some assistance. The First Amendment prohibits the govt. from establishing a religion.Assume I come up with enough votes to amend the constitution to eliminate your first amendment protections.

Now, can I force you to bow down to my God, or is that a "right" you'd die to protect, even though it's no longer listed in the constitution?

[Thumper]

amend the constitution to eliminate your first amendment protections.

It's pretty easy to make the case, historically, that changing any of the promised First Ten kinda invalidates the whole shmear.

[Geech]

I believe the point Rock Jock is making is that the Constitution leaves room for the states to have a lot of different types of laws. It comes down to what's in the state constitutions. If the Texas Constitution is written that way, then it's perfectly fine for them to pass a law outlawing sodomy. The federal government has no power to interfere with that.

[Cosmoline]

"Exactly, Cosmo, but no amount of "sue-age" (I kill me) changes the fact that the water table is now hosed.

Do you need a community law?"

If someone is ruining the water supply, I think that would be a reasonable basis for community action. But in such a case that person's actions ARE HARMING OTHERS. What I'm talking about is my own private life. Listen to conservative Christian radio, and all you hear is obessing about what's going on behind closed doors. It's bizarre--almost a fetish. I see no difference between that and the "soccer mom" who frets and moans about how many firearms there are and how much they scare her.

Obviously, all law is to some extent morality-based. I simply feel that government must make a strong showing that some third party or parties are being actually harmed by the action of the individual. Otherwise the "community" can get stuffed. They're all a bunch of useless blue-haired busybodies anyway :D

[Derek Zeanah]

I believe the point Rock Jock is making is that the Constitution leaves room for the states to have a lot of different types of laws. It comes down to what's in the state constitutions. If the Texas Constitution is written that way, then it's perfectly fine for them to pass a law outlawing sodomy. The federal government has no power to interfere with that.And we're back at trying to define what constitutes a "right."

Do I have a right to worship however I see fit, regardless of whether the first amendment stands or not? Can I be forced to pray to Baal if my local community decides that's the fix to the drought? No. That's an infringement of my rights, regardless of whether some paper some "old dead white guys" signed over 200 years ago affirms it or not.

Do my wife and I have the "right" to express our love for each other any way we want? What if the law (as it did in Alabama until recently) outlawed all sexual contact not intended to produce a "male heir?" Do we still have the right to consumate our marriage even while using birth control? Can birth control be outlawed, as there's clearly no legal purpose for it? Is "heavy petting" a jailable offense? What if my swimmers don't swim straight -- am I therefore forbidden to consumate my marriage, and am I therefore not allowed to marry? WHat if I've already got 2 boys and want a girl? I say it's our business how we act in our bedroom, and anyone saying otherwise is trying to infringe on that right. My rights trump a stupid law, whether that law is federal, state, or local.

So, does it require the federal government to step in when rights are infringed? Are my rights limited to those listed in the federal constitution? Must rights be clearly described on paper somewhere before they are mmeaningful?

I say no.

[Thumper]

Cosmo,
We agree.
:D

[Tamara]

I know a strictly Constitutional system is confusing, so let me be of some assistance. The First Amendment prohibits the govt. from establishing a religion.

*sigh*

I know the example I gave was confusing, so let me try another one:

Can a majority of the votes in your community make you wash behind your ears every Wednesday evening at 6:47 PM? (Suppose they put it in a "Constitution"? Would that make it okay, then?)

[rock jock]

I think the disagreement we have Derek, is that you see the Constitution as a guide, a starting point, that can and should be morphed to take into account your personal beliefs. While that is certainly a nice notion, it opens the Constitution to all sorts of interpretations that have no basis in history, in the literal reading of the Amendments, or in original intent. Thus, you end up with a "living Constitution" that can be bent to accomodate you, or Sarah Brady for example.

"Control others" versus "leave people alone." They aren't the same.
I don't want to control anyone. But I do want to retain the right to set community standards, which BTW, we have now (they're called laws). So, if someone wishes to smoke crack cocaine, I say fine, just do it in some other state. Same with homosexuality.

I believe I have certain rights
Great. Find a state with like-minded people (I am sure there would be several to choose among) and live there. I also believe I have certain rights and under a truly Constitutional system, I too would choose a state with folks that share my belief system. Its really not a hard concept. Now, we are free to travel to each others' state, or not. We are free to boycott each others state, or not. You would be free to come and, being fully armed, participate in a march protesting our narrow-minded views. And I in turn would be free to travel to your state and do the same. Thus, we would live in harmony, you enjoying your literal and clearly spelled out Constitutional rights and others your state recognizes and I doing the same. Politicians in Washington would be left with little to do as their role and authority would be severely limited. The state govts, OTOH, would enjoy a great deal of latitude since the real power to govern would be shifted down to the capitols. We might even learn a few things from each other. You might realize after a few years that unfettered legal access to every conceivable drug has runied your youth population and hurt your state's chances of economic growth. My state, OTOH, might decide that we should be a little more liberal in what we allow. Therein in lies the beauty of this arrangement, we coexisting as United States, rather than as the single United State we are today.

She just didn't get the concept of representative government. It may be the same deal with you -- the concept of leaving others to handle their own affairs without interference (provided they don't infringe on your affairs/personal space in the mean-tim) might be so "out there" that you can't use your normal models to understand it.
I suspect that you, too, cannot fathom the idea I speak of because it is so foreign to your way of thinking, i.e., a strictly Constitutional system. Your personal philisophy clearly outweighs your adherance to the Constitution. And that's fine, but just remember that we are our present situation in this country because folks have done just that - elevated their personal belief systems above that of the Constitution, so that any violation can be justified for "the greater good".

[Tamara]

elevated their personal belief systems above that of the Constitution, so that any violation can be justified for "the greater good".

Oh, yeah, one of us definitely believes anything is right in the name of the "greater good", rock jock, but I darn well know it ain't me... ;) :p

[rock jock]

Can a majority of the votes in your community make you wash behind your ears every Wednesday evening at 6:47 PM?
I suppose this was an example of my ideal community's standards taken to an absurd degree. So, I would in turn ask you, in your ideal libertarian community, would it be OK for a child to be raised in a one-room house by a father who has left his wife and now is married to three male sheep? I suspect that we would both answer, "well, I suppose, but that would be a ridiculous scenario that would almost certainly never take place because while we both strongly disagree with each other's political views, we are still endowed (along with fellow members of our respective communities) with somewhat rational minds." Now, if you ask me can a comminuty set some basic standards for hygeine in public, I would say yes but, again, it would have to be a pretty severe case of unhygeinic behavior to pass a law. For example, I don't think there would be a community uproar over folks that only bath once or twice a month. They may not be welcome at the corner store, but we certainly aren't going to have them arrested. OTOH, the town looney rolling around naked in dog feces and then parading down Main St. would probably merit an arrest, if for no other reason than to haul him to the fire station for a quick rinse. In your idealized libertarian community, the same dog-poo man would probably get some type of award for Best Free Expression.

[rock jock]

Oh, yeah, one of us definitely believes anything is right in the name of the "greater good", rock jock, but I darn well know it ain't me...
I know, I know, Tamara. Your intentions are as clean and pure as the freshly driven snow. I am sure that is exactly how you feel as you suppressed my community's right to set standards that are beyond the purview of the Constitution. I just wonder if you would use the phrase "for the children" as you forced us to adopt your utopian beliefs?

[Tamara]

I suppose this was an example of my ideal community's standards taken to an absurd degree.

No, we're attempting to establish a baseline of what you think a majority can tell you to do.

So, I would in turn ask you, in your ideal libertarian community, would it be OK for a child...

You can stop right after the word "child," as you have thereby introduced another human being into the equation.

So, rock jock, I'm still wondering: you live alone, on, say, one hundred acres. Would you think that a simple majority would be right in making you wash behind your ears every Wednesday at 6:47 PM, or would that take a two-thirds majority?

How about to take one dollar out of every three you earn? Simple majority or supermajority?

Just curious how much a part of the hive you feel yourself to be... :confused:

[rock jock]

You can stop right after the word "child," as you have thereby introduced another human being into the equation.
I don't understand, Tam. Little Timmy wouldn't be physically harmed, which I believe you and your libertarian contemporaries on this board have established as the dividing line for limiting rights. Now, he might be psychologically scarred for life, but that's OK in a libertarian commnuity, right? Oh, its not? So, it's then OK to set some standards to protect the children, isn't it? Oops, there are those pesky community standards again.

I can't wait for you to talk your way out of this one.

[Derek Zeanah]

I think the disagreement we have Derek, is that you see the Constitution as a guide, a starting point, that can and should be morphed to take into account your personal beliefs. While that is certainly a nice notion, it opens the Constitution to all sorts of interpretations that have no basis in history, in the literal reading of the Amendments, or in original intent. Thus, you end up with a "living Constitution" that can be bent to accomodate you, or Sarah Brady for example.Actually, I believe that this document (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html) was correct when it asserted: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and HappinessWe exist, and our existence brings us a big ol' pile of rights, which I expect governments to respect. The constitution isn't a "starting point;" it's a guideline for building a government designed to perform essential tasks while respecting the rights of its citizens.
I don't want to control anyone. But I do want to retain the right to set community standards, which BTW, we have now (they're called laws). So, if someone wishes to smoke crack cocaine, I say fine, just do it in some other state. Same with homosexuality.Dude, that's control. You outlaw it, and I get upset and want to make a point. So, I buy and smoke some crack (never would touch the stuff otherwise) and have myself put under hypnosis so I can engage in sodomy at the same time. I publicise this.

Now, does your community, via its laws, say "damn liberal hippie queer" and move on, or do you arrest me or have me forcibly deported? What if I resist? Control.Politicians in Washington would be left with little to do as their role and authority would be severely limited. The state govts, OTOH, would enjoy a great deal of latitude since the real power to govern would be shifted down to the capitols.So tyrrany is OK as long as it's performed locally? "Rights" that the fed.gov is forced to accept no longer exist in the realm of local politics?You might realize after a few years that unfettered legal access to every conceivable drug has runied your youth population and hurt your state's chances of economic growthOr we might realize that the social and economic harms associated with freely available drugs are measurably less than the harms associated with the drug war you maintain. Remember, all this stuff was freely available at the beginning of the last century (the "coke" in coke was cocaine), and I'd argue that most measurable social ills are worse now than then, after you zero out changes associated with technological advancement. You understand that almost all of the infringements on our rights in the last few decades (including NFA '34) were associated with a "war on alcohol,' or a "war on drugs," right? Next up: the War On Terror(tm).

Note though, if it's OK to have a violent uprising to fight federal tyrrany, it's just as justified locally.I suspect that you, too, cannot fathom the idea I speak of because it is so foreign to your way of thinking, i.e., a strictly Constitutional system. Your personal philisophy clearly outweighs your adherance to the Constitution.There's a reason you aren't answering any of my questions, isn't there? Answer any of Tamara's? Some of us disagree strongly with you as far as defining a "strictly constitutional system."

[Thumper]

Doesn't the word "governed" imply a certain level of control?

I have to admit, anarchy holds an appeal to me on a very juvenile level...I'm bigger, meaner, faster and better armed than most. :D

[Poodleshooter]

The exceptions are things that infringe on the rights of others: driving while under the influence of heroin puts others at risk, so is a no-no. Fermenting bio-agents puts neighbors at risk and is a no-no. While I have a right to own 2,000 lbs of C4, that doesn't give me the right to store it above-ground ina residential neighborhood.
I think here is where we have a problem. A libertarian lists these as being wrong because they put a person "at risk". However, note that no one is necessarily HARMED by drunk driving, ownership of c-4 or making bio agents. If libertarians and others all agree that placing someone's life at risk is a driver for regulation, then we have the very arguable point of what constitutes "risk" to someones life? How direct of a relationship does this have to be? How are people to decide that my having 2000# of C-4 is more of a risk than my carrying around a loaded handgun?
We cannot allow "Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't have a negative effect on others" to be the law of the land until we ALL agree on what the negative effects are. We can't even agree on statistics, much less the extent of rights. To me, that's the problem with the execution of libertarian ideas in government.

[rock jock]

There's a reason you aren't answering any of my questions, isn't there? Answer any of Tamara's? Some of us disagree strongly with you as far as defining a "strictly constitutional system."
I have answered your questions. You fail to understand another point of view because your own belief system won't let you process anything that doesn't fit neatly into your perfect world.

Dude, that's control. You outlaw it, and I get upset and want to make a point.
Laws are about controlling behavior. The question you still refuse to answer is why can you not live and let live? Why can you not let others determine standards for their own comminuties while you set standards for yours? Why is it that you feel obliged to dictate to folks who live in other states how they must conform to your belief system? If my community makes drug use and homosexuality illegal, what business is that of yours if you live half-way across the country? Why is it that you would twist and turn at night knowing that other folks in other states live according to a different set of community standards than you? That is really telling IMO.

So tyrrany is OK as long as it's performed locally?
Well, I knew that was coming. You can't understand another perspective, or refuse to consider it, so it must be tyrannical, huh? And you forcing your belief system onto folks who want no part of it, well, that's just pure peace and love, right?

[Derek Zeanah]

Hey, I was giving my take on those particular issues. Don't hurt nobody because your were negligent/stupid, and we'll call it good, ok?We cannot allow "Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't have a negative effect on others" to be the law of the land until we ALL agree on what the negative effects are. We can't even agree on statistics, much less the extent of rights. To me, that's the problem with the execution of libertarian ideas in government.That's what the legal system is for. The paper mill down the road is stinking up your yard every morning. How much is that pollution worth? Right now, nothing. If you and everyone else team up to get some compensation, then it's worth something. And that cost gets factored into the financial equations of businesses, and we start to get somewhere as far as pollution and what-not.

Right now there's no solution there, other than to get the EPA involved, and have all fines go into the gov't coffers. (Which might produce a situation where costs to government is maximized while cost to business is minimized, without addressing the real issue. It costs $60 million to clean up the facilities so mercury isn't going into drinking water, or you can pay a $1.5 million/year fine. How do those numbers work out under the current system?)

[rock jock]

what constitutes "risk" to someones life
Not just a person's life, but a community as well. Rampant violence, for example, harms not only an individual, but also causes econominc damage to a community. Business move out, people live in fear, jobs are lost. Individuals address these kinds of problems both personally, but also on a community-wide basis.

[rock jock]

If you and everyone else team up to get some compensation, then it's worth something. And that cost gets factored into the financial equations of businesses, and we start to get somewhere as far as pollution and what-not.
How much pollution? What damage did it cause? Without regulations, there is no way to tell. The company certainly isn't going to release records of how much benzene was released, for example w/o a law compelling them to do so. In fact, they would be foolish to even keep records. So, are you going to wait 20 years to see if tumors develop? A little late for compensation at that point, especially if the business is long gone. What if there were two paper mills involved? How are you going to assign blame for a release w/o evidence, which won't be forthcoming. They could play "point the finger" game all day long and you would SOL. Nope, prevention is the only practical solution and that ain't going to happen w/o compulsory compliance.

[Derek Zeanah]

I have answered your questionsSo, can tamara force you to wash behind your ears at a certain time? Can I get a majority vote to gut the first amendment, then force you to pray to Baal to get the rain turned back on?

Laws are about controlling behavior.Bingo. The question you still refuse to answer is why can you not live and let live? Why can you not let others determine standards for their own comminuties while you set standards for yours?Because odds are you and I (or people like us) live in each other's communities. What do you do with me if I want to have steaming-hot butt-sex in my house while consuming pounds of rock cocaine in my own bedroom? Control. The answer is you lock me up or kill me if I resist. Now, we get back to "rights" again. Do I have a right to live my life unhindered by rules you want to impose on me that do nothing other than inforce your morals on me?Why is it that you feel obliged to dictate to folks who live in other states how they must conform to your belief system?Saying "leave me alone" is getting turned around into "you're forcing us to not control your life! How is that fair to us control freaks!"If my community makes drug use and homosexuality illegal, what business is that of yours if you live half-way across the country?What business is it if we happen to live next door to each other. Actually, I've never used drugs or experimented with gay sex so I'm probably a bad example. How about the gay AIDS victim who lives down your street who smokes marijuana in an attempt to prolong his life. Does he have any say? What right do you have to break his 20-year monogomous relationship up and force him to shorten his life?Why is it that you would twist and turn at night knowing that other folks in other states live according to a different set of community standards than you? That is really telling IMO.It really is, but what I'm seeing is a person who demands the right to control others, and is not willing to let others live in peace.

And by the way, the reason I care about others rights is because I want my own protected. That gay drug smoker might not care about my building a community mosque and adding to my collection of artillery pieces, but he'll probably help me out if I help him. We're all in this together, and we all engage in behavior that other people want to outlaw. (Guns, anyone?) If you want to stand tall and say "leave me alone" on your favorite issue, then you have to be an adult about it and respect others rights as well.

Well, I knew that was coming. You can't understand another perspective, or refuse to consider it, so it must be tyrannical, huh? And you forcing your belief system onto folks who want no part of it, well, that's just pure peace and love, right?Sorry, I missed that answer. Is tyrrany OK if practiced locally? Is it ok for your state (and eventually all states) to outlaw firearms and self-defense, or is that a right that can't be stepped on? Is it still a right if the 2nd amendment is amended into nothingness?

Another question.

[rock jock]

Don't hurt nobody because your were negligent/stupid
Yup, so it goes. Let's see, I haven't called you word one on this thread and so far you've said my ideas were tyrannical and called me stupid. Way to take the high road.

[ahenry]

The state govts, OTOH, would enjoy a great deal of latitude since the real power to govern would be shifted down to the capitols. Here here! Far too few understand how our nation was originally designed. And you know, it is terribly unfortunate that over half a million Americans had to die dealing with this very issue only to have it resurface just over a century later. I can’t keep “wrong side won” from popping into my mind either.


I sure pity us poor "domineering and controlling Texans". Wish I could find a more freedom-loving place to live. Wait no, that’s not right. Oh hell, guess I’ll just stay here and live the life of a subject, toiling away everyday working my fingers to the bone only to go home at night and cowering in fear of what terrible and oppressive laws are coming to make me more and more of a subject.

[Derek Zeanah]

How much pollution? What damage did it cause? Without regulations, there is no way to tell.Sure there is. You get together with all your neighbors, hire some experts, and come forward with the claim that "we have 18 kids whose doctors say the air pollution is contributing to their asthma, we have 2 grandmoms who can't hang their wash out to dry because it absorbs teh stink, and we have 2,042 who say it stinks too much every morning when they walk outside. We are here to get compensation for asthma treatment for 18 kids, 2 washing machines, and are willing to license our rights to enjoy the air on our property for a reasonable fee, suggested as being $1 per person per day."

That's what courts are for. Or should be.

[Derek Zeanah]

Yup, so it goes. Let's see, I haven't called you word one on this thread and so far you've said my ideas were tyrannical and called me stupid. Way to take the high road.Sigh. Reread the post, and the first post on this page. I would call driving while stoned on heroin negligent and/or stupid. Wouldn't you?

And I do see the system of laws we live under today as tyrranical. I see your recommended solution (minimize the fed.gov and let the states do what they want, "rights" be damned) as worse. I'm sorry if you don't like the term. Should I find another?

[rock jock]

Because odds are you and I (or people like us) live in each other's communities.
Well, there's the solution, isn't it? You live in your community and I live in mine and never the two shall meet. But I suspect that is not good enough for you. You feel a complusion to dictate to my community the standards we set.

So, can tamara force you to wash behind your ears at a certain time?
So Little Timmy has to live with (or even next door to for that matter) Rufus and his 3-sheep harem? I noticed that you conveniently forgot to address my earlier question.

[Thumper]

Poodleshooter chimed in with a heretofore unrecognized Good Point.

Any rebuttal?

Rockjock...to take the gay hippie's side for a minute, i think he meant the collective "you" with the "negligent/stupid" comment. :D

[Derek Zeanah]

Well, there's the solution, isn't it? You live in your community and I live in mine and never the two shall meet. But I suspect that is not good enough for you. You feel a complusion to dictate to my community the standards we set.Either that, or I am set to inherit land that's been in my family for over 120 years. Now, who gets to decide who stays and who leaves, and why is a solution that forces someone to move away from family/friends/heritage acceptable to you?

I noticed that you conveniently forgot to address my earlier question.Again, you dodge 3 questions. Tell ya what, I'll go re-read your sheep question (which was addressed to Tamara and not me, by the way. All my questions were directed at you), and I'd like you to go ahead and answer some of mine. Are rights defined as existing on a piece of paper, or do they exist regardless of their official recognition? Simple question. "It depends on how I feel about the issue, and whether it involves homosexuality or the use of non-alcoholic drugs" is not an answer.

[rock jock]

Sure there is. You get together with all your neighbors, hire some experts, and come forward with the claim that "we have 18 kids whose doctors say the air pollution is contributing to their asthma, we have 2 grandmoms who can't hang their wash out to dry because it absorbs teh stink, and we have 2,042 who say it stinks too much every morning when they walk outside. We are here to get compensation for asthma treatment for 18 kids, 2 washing machines, and are willing to license our rights to enjoy the air on our property for a reasonable fee, suggested as being $1 per person per day."
Yes, and they come forward with their experts who maintain:

1. you have no evidence that the pollution in question came from us
2. you have no evidence that the levels of pollution we emitted are harmful
3. you have no evidence that the kids aggravated asthma was due to our plant and not neighbor's old car, or their grandma's chain-smoking, or global warming for that matter

This of course assuming that a poor community of 50 people can afford $30-100K to pay for experts who most likely won't prevail in a court of law.

[Glock Glockler]

Why can you not let others determine standards for their own comminuties while you set standards for yours?

Rock, I agree with you that most laws should be as local as possible, but this is in a state/local v Federal debate. Although I've consistently argued that having local drug, religion, or sodomy laws does not conflict the the BoR or the Constitution and that the Feds should not be forcing one set or another down people's throats, I don't see how that justifies any of that stuff done on a local level.

The only difference is the level of govt that one group is going to shove govt down the throats of others, others think it should be Federal and you prefer local. I prefer not at all, but decided that way as local as possible. I fail to see how you have any legitimate reason in sending a cop to burst down my door and arrest me when I'm ingesting drug X into my body, whether that's a local or federal cop. I own my body, not you or any "community" you wish to invent.

If you're against drug abuse, not counting your buddies going down to the Saloon on Friday night and drinking a few gallons of beer because we know that alcohol isn't a drug, then don't take them and encourage others to do likewise. I don't see how being within a certain geographical boundary gives you claim to dictate to others how to live even when they're not harming another person.

So tyrrany is OK as long as it's performed locally? "Rights" that the fed.gov is forced to accept no longer exist in the realm of local politics?

I think the idea is that one doesnt want to put the rooster in charge of the hen house. The BoR was crafted as a protection for the states because the Constitution put way too much power in the hands of the feds (they were right). It was done to restrict federal power, not state of local power. How would it restrict the feds if it was applied to states and localities and the feds got to decide how it was applied? It also ignores the plain language of the BoR. People on this board love to point out "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand" but think that "Congress shall make no law" some how means that no states or localities shall make any law as well.

[atek3]

I don't want to control anyone. But I do want to retain the right to set community standards, which BTW, we have now (they're called laws). So, if someone wishes to smoke crack cocaine, I say fine, just do it in some other state. Same with homosexuality.


Laugh, snort, guffaw :D
"I don't want to control anyone, but I do want to to retain the ability of my friends and I to tell people what they can and cannot do behind closed doors."

If I didn't accurately restate what you just said, let me know. And if what you said isn't control you can shoot me dead.

atek3

[Travis McGee]

How did this Civil War 2 thread become a
"How many libertarians can dance on the head of a pin" thread?

[rock jock]

Are rights defined as existing on a piece of paper, or do they exist regardless of their official recognition?
I might ask you the same thing. Just because someone believes they have a certain right doesn't make it so. Shocking? Why so? you are contending tha same with me. I don't think that a person has an inherent right to deviant sexual behavior. You don't think that I have a right a participate in the setting of comminuty standards. So what is your point? As I said before, your beliefs dictate your definition of rights.

What is ironic about this discussion is that I have no desire to tell you how your community can live, yet you do not hesitate to tell me how my community must live. Talk about tyranny.

[Derek Zeanah]

Rock Jock:

Assume for 2 minutes that we can agree on what "rights" are real "rights," as opposed to those that are simply excuses for deviant behavior according to your community.

Are you ready?

<BLAM>

OK, your ideas on "rights" and mine are now totally in sync. You think it's a right, and I do too. You don't and I hate it as much as you do.

Now, are those rights granted by government, or by God (or birth, or creation, or whatever)?

[rock jock]

"I don't want to control anyone, but I do want to to retain the ability of my friends and I to tell people what they can and cannot do behind closed doors."
That is a new standard for twisting someone's words. Listen, I could care less if someone wants to move another state can have relations with 100 sheep and 2 democrats a day. So no, I don't want to control them. They are perfectly free to do what they want elsewhere. Funny thing though, Derek, Tam, and you want to force my community to accept what you would gladly embrace. Sad.

[Kaylee]

I must be dense. Somehow I just don't understand how "stay out of my gun closet, medicine cabinet, and my bedroom" translates to wanting to control others, but "let me tell you what belongs in your gun closet, medicine cabinet, and bedroom (at least if you're my neighbor)" isn't controlling others? :confused:

why am I all of a sudden feeling like a southern abolitionist c. 1853? :)

[rock jock]

Now, are those rights granted by government, or by God
Derek, that is an unanswerable question. IMO, rights fall into 3 categories:

1. rights that are granted by your creator
2. rights that are recognized by your governing authority
3. rights that you personally believe you possess

So, I might believe I have the right to keep and bear arms because God grants me the right to self-defence. My neighbor might believe that we have that right because of the 2A. My other neighbor may be an atheist and therefore believe that their RKBA derives from their very existence. IOW, each of us has a different basis for what we believe is a "right". I'll give you another example. Lots of folks in other countries feel they have a right to beat their wives. Some believe they have that right because, in their opinion, women are mentally weaker and must be kept in line; others because their god grants it to them; still others because their govt. recognizes it as legal. We would probably agree that this is not a right at all, but to those folks it is, and they would defend it just as vehemently as you and I would defend our RKBA. Point is, in order for us to have the same starting point w/ regard to the origin of our rights, we would have to agree that there is an objective right and wrong, good and bad, whatever, and probably agree (mostly at least) on our religious beliefs and finally, on what constitutes the necessary elements of a workable society. That is simply not going to happen. So, as a result, we (meaning corporately the citizens of the US) agree on a set of universal rights that will be enjoyed by all. After that, we split into our own communities and set our own standards based on our own definition of rights. And that is exactly the way our FF envisioned the US. Look at the nasty disputes that took place early in the formation of this republic w/ regard to the extent of laws and rights, the proper role of religion, and so forth. But they worked these things out on the local level, the way is was designed to be. You, however, want to subvert this process by establishing a set of "extra-Constitutional" rights universally applied to everyone. In doing so, the basis for these rights transfers from local control to the federal govt and you have much the same system we have now, with in-fighting and a country poised to start a Civil War.

[atek3]

Rockjock, if homosexuality, drug use, or whatever, offends you so bad that you refuse to live in a community with "Those kinds of people", read Democracy:The God that Failed by Hans Hermann Hoppe (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0765808684/qid=1066261123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-8971218-5126449?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) . He's a conservative anarchist :) . He believes private communities SHOULD set standards, the understanding is that every resident of those private communities is an explicit signatory of a "contract" makes certain things okay and certain things worthy of expulsion. No ones 'rights' (your definition or mine) are being violated in such a circumstance because membership of said community is voluntary, you moved here with an explicit understanding of the rules (the contract you signed). And assuming a libertarian society, the right of Contract would be inviolate, unlike our modern society, which forces private associations to accept people without "discrimination. Meaning, if your private community agreed, "no sodomites and crack addicts", none could live in your community or else they'd get the boot. Another private community might make a rule, "only gay crackheads are allowed", that community also would be allowed to form (however it would probably have a lifespan of about 30 days :) ) . What I'm trying to say is, you CAN have community standards, as long as those "community standards" are formed with a Consensus of participants.
So, suppose you had a community, call it "squaresville", population 50. Those 50 residents if they were so inclined, could make a rule saying, "no marijuana is allowed within the city limits", if they got unanimous consent. No one's rights have been violated because the signatories are all consenting adults. Now people that want to smoke marijuana can see a sign on the city limits that says, "Squaresville- No pot allowed or 30 days in jail", setting foot within squaresville is a binding contract, and the penalty for breaking said contract is 30 days in jail. Pothead wants to avoid jail, he stays out of town. Suppose a town member signs the contract, gets cancer, wants to smoke pot, well he signed a contract, if he wants to smoke pot he has to get out of YOUR town.
Do you see where I'm headed, within a libertarian framework, communities can set standards, you can have your "conservative town" and I can have my "wacked out crazy libertarian town" and we can get along just fine.

atek3

[Derek Zeanah]

I think our disagreement is basic: I want to be left alone by government, as much as possible, and am willing to leave everyone else alone as well. You want to use government to build the sort of community that you want to live in, excluding those who don't agree with your laws.

Maybe a better was to state this is that I believe the ninth amendment is as important (if not more) than the rest of the bill or rights; you don't.

I don't know that we'll agree. We might agree on the gun rights issue, but you probably see me as an anarchist, while I see you as a statist. Each of us thinks the other's opinions will make the world a worse place.

So there we are. Yet another reason that starting a revolution is stupid -- you and I woulnd't agree afterward, and might even initiate violence against each other. Though to be honest, I think your stated goals and values are very much in line with current society, especially in urban areas.

[rock jock]

Do you see where I'm headed, within a libertarian framework, communities can set standards, you can have your "conservative town" and I can have my "wacked out crazy libertarian town" and we can get along just fine.
That is exactly the opposite of what Derek has been arguing. As for me, I could definitely go for that type of system. If the LP evers adopts that as a platform, I'll switch parties in a hearbeat.

[Glock Glockler]

Derek,

I have an idea, instead of having some type of civil war to see whose policy will be instituted on a national level, why don't we have something of a compromise and decide drug policy on a state and local level? You and I would like to see drugs legalized because we think we'd be better off for it and Rock Jock would like to see them illegal in his state, ok, why don't we see who's right and test it out in our respective states and let the chips fall where they may?

We already have a nice testing ground as far as RKBA is concerned with some states having draconian gun control laws and others with virtually no laws. To a certain extent it's good to have these examples of what not to do. One size fits all on a national level denies us this ability to do so on a proximate level.

[rock jock]

I want to be left alone by government, as much as possible, and am willing to leave everyone else alone as well. You want to use government to build the sort of community that you want to live in, excluding those who don't agree with your laws.
Though to be honest, I think your stated goals and values are very much in line with current society, especially in urban areas.
Well, I've got some unfortunate news for you. No society has ever existed in anarchy for long w/o the formation of tyranny worse than the govt. it replaced. You want to be left alone? I suggest you move to the deep isolation of Alaska. You want to live around others? You're going to have to play by some rules, period. Those rules will restrict some of your behavior. Call it control, tyranny, whatever. The key is to find a community with rules that are not so over-reaching that you cannot abide by them. So, you call me a statist because I recognize the reality of govt. That's fine. I would call you extremely naive to think that your utopia could exist at all.

[Thumper]

Uh oh...you said the "A" word. Careful, some here view the concept of anarchy with an almost religious fervor.

Segue to Tamara's next post...:D

[Derek Zeanah]

That is exactly the opposite of what Derek has been arguing. As for me, I could definitely go for that type of system. If the LP evers adopts that as a platform, I'll switch parties in a hearbeat.I'd be absolutely cool with this if I get to set the standards for wherever I live. Odds are, though, that the majority are going to be closer to rock jock than to me, and I'll be worse off in my own neighborhood. :(


Well, I've got some unfortunate news for you. No society has ever existed in anarchy for long w/o the formation of tyranny worse than the govt. it replaced. You want to be left alone? I suggest you move to the deep isolation of Alaska.I'm looking for something a lot closer to what we had in this country 100 years ago, thanks. I wouldn't call it "anarchy," but I would say we're closer to the dreaded T word now than at any time prior in our history.You want to live around others? You're going to have to play by some rules, period. Those rules will restrict some of your behavior. Call it control, tyranny, whatever.Some government is a necessity. No problems with that.So, you call me a statist because I recognize the reality of govt. That's fine. I would call you extremely naive to think that your utopia could exist at all.I'd call you a statist because you think it's OK to legalize morality. You can call me naive to believe that this country was freer in the past -- my neighbor does because he's pretty left of me -- but I still see living in a country closer to our pre-NFA, pre-drug war, pre-income tax past as a good thing.

It's OK that we don't agree. Really. I know I'm holding a minority position here.

[Chris Rhines]

Yahoo! The relativism is flying 'round thick and fierce!!!

Okay, first off: 'Communities' have no right to set standards of behaivor. Communities have no rights at all. None. Nada. The individuals who live in the community have rights, but their rights are exactly the same irregardless of what social system they happen to live under.

A person who wants to place limits on another's enjoyment of his rights wants to control others. That includes placing limits on where they can enjoy their rights. Example:

Listen, I could care less if someone wants to move another state can have relations with 100 sheep and 2 democrats a day. So no, I don't want to control them. In this quote, rock jock claims that he does not want to control other people. But, in the prior sentence, he states that a hypothetical person who wishes to engage in, ah, unusual sex practices should be forced to 'move to another state.' That is an advocacy of controling others, and no amoung of equivication will change it.

- Chris

[Don Galt]

Ok, lets put it in another context, without changing the meaning.

It seems to me that according to Rock Jock, if a black woman and a white man, or a white woman and a black man, want to get married, they have to do so with the consent of the community. (Everyone in the community? or just the majority? which is legal?)

That if the majority of the community thinks interratial marriage is disgusting, that community has the right to abolish it legally.

This is Rock Jocks opinion... if you don't like it you can go live in another community.

Ok, this is something Libertarians could accept if the "community" consists of only privately owned land and that everyone moving there knew these community standards existed before signing a lease some of the land. Once someone owns their own land inside the community, they inherit the rights to do whatever they want on their own land (at least in terms of who they marry... lets keep this simple)

Libertarians don't think discrimination is a moral crime. They don't like it, they think its stupid, they think its bad for capitalism, but they recognize the fact that discrimination is merely an excercise of the right of free association.

You know what else is an excercise of the right of free association? Marriage.

So, if two guys get married about a mile from you, they have NOT violated your rights, RockJock. They are not forcing you to accept their marriage. You can refuse to recognize it, refuse to do business with them if you want (in a libertarian society), or sit in your bedroom and read the bible all day obsessing over them. Or you can move a hundred miles away so you don't have to be near them--- whatever you want to avoid having to "Accept" them. All of these are exercising your right of free association to not associate with them.

That is your right, but that is the extent of your rights.

You cannot FORCE them to not get married. To do that, you are not "withholding your acceptance" -- something you can do by not associating with them. At the point that you pass a law preventing them from getting married, you are in the moral equivilent situation of showing up on their property, putting a gun to one of their heads and demanding that you will kidnap or kill them if they do not do what you say. Morally, you are imposing your will on them-- you are controlling them, and you are in violation of their human rights.

All laws are inherently backed up with violence. Any immoral laws is an act of violence against everyone it impacts. When you pass a law, you are in the moral position of showing up with a gun and forcing people to comply to your wishes. Thus the only moral laws are ones that respond to an initiation of force. You initiating force-- whether doing it yourself, or doing it thru a "law" is irrelevant-- is immoral.

No consent or "acceptance" is required from you for them to get married. Your problems with the thought of them getting married is your problem, not theirs.

You have it twisted around in your head to the point that you think if someone chooses not to practice your religion, they have somehow violated your rights! ITs absurd, and you really should be able to see the absurdity.

So what gives? Where did you get the right to impose religion on other people? How can you say a black man marrying a white woman is a violation of your rights?

You aren't even involved!

[tiberius]

There is nothing wrong or anti-liberitine about establishing reasonable community standards as long as these standards are resonable and not arbitary or violations of fundamental rights (speech, association, arms, etc.). However, IMHO, the enclosed walls of ones home form a "community" of its own with the full creator endowed power to set it's own standards.

[BigG]

Uh, having relations with 2 democrats a day, falls under unusual sexual practices? Hmm... :uhoh:

[Moparmike]

Tiberius, who sets the standard for reason? That is the lynch pin of the whole arguement.

Like DonGalt said, if you have a peice of property that you want to start your own little commune on with its rules and regulations written by the Religious Right, then that is within your power in a libertarian world. However, if someone isnt on your commune's property, there isnt a damned thing you can do about their penchant for sheep or the same sex or guns or cheese or logic or South Park.

I too wonder with Kaylee what is so hard about understanding the phrase "Leave me the Hell alone!":confused:

[tiberius]

Mopar,

I think you misunderstand me. Communities must have rights to establish acceptable public behavior. The key word is public. Some STATISTS in this thread are advocating control of private behavior, and I am completely against this. There is no need to be absurd here, it is possible to discuss and decide what is and what is not acceptable public behavior, even if its acceptability changes with the times and mores.

In regards to regulating public behavior, however, the standard cannot be that only those things which actually harm others can be restricted. There are things that should be completely off limits to restrictions because they are inalienable rights (again like speech, association, wearing of arms, etc) but other things are often restricted because it makes the community a better place for most.

For example: Public sex harms no one in any way. The most harm that anyone could claim is that it makes them uncomfortable. I do not believe that I am being a hypocrite to my libertarian beliefs to support an ordinance against it. Do you?

What goes on behind closed doors, however, is no one else's business. * I was only setting up the individual household as an independent community to point out the silliness of the STATISTS here.


* Usual disclaimers regarding protecting others i.e fist/face reference et al.