Discussion in 'Legal' started by mercedesrules, May 23, 2005.
Gordon, is that ideologically inflexible? Is there never any pragmatism?
Absolutely nothing. IMAO we as a society would be well served by following the example set by Captain Smith the Jamestown settlement. For all able bodied persons, the follow policy applies.
No work. No food.
Ya wanna lay about in the sun all day, getting wasted and enjoying the vibe, fine. You should last about 60-90 days before you expire of hunger. Try to STEAL the food, and you'll expire in a much shorter time frame.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
I dont remember who said that. Hobbs? Nietsche?
Sindawe, I agree with you fundamentally on this. There are some people who really are incapable of working but that isnt the majority by any means.
That is why I qualified it by referring to the able bodied. Heck, even the unable bodied can work and contribute in some fashion to their self support. IT helpdesk on the phone, coding, stuff like that. Look at Dr. Hawking, the guy is about as physically disabled as they come, and he is STILL working.
You'll admit Hawking is a little unusual. But yes, there are plenty of severly disabled people who go to work every day. And plenty of others who could.
You can propose mandatory productivity, but I didn't. It's not that simple IMO. All I would do is discourage freeloading among the capable but can well see how some compassion will always be needed. Some people just don't cut it, have been unfortunate, or truly are underprivileged and don't find a way out. Some make bad decisions from which it is difficult to recover. Overcoming obstacles is a great test of character, but it is a lot to expect of literally everyone. Some people just coast from an advantaged position, better parenting, or with extraordinary capabilities. Are they really special?
Ok, let me try again: If there is no obligation NOT to do something (which arises only if that act would harm someone else), then I have a right TO do it.
:banghead: That makes it right?
How so? I just reported what drug warriors have told me for years. Search for threads in which I've posted here and on TFL, you'll find examples. Not so many since Stewart and Raich came around, since so few drug warriors want to talk to me about interstate commerce, but the examples are there.
They say certain outcomes are typical of drug use. I'm just saying that with at least 70 million who have used illegal drugs, if those outcomes were typical, we'd see more of them than we do. We don't. They're not.
The seatbelt argument is that lack of compliance ultimately becomes a burden to society. How about (which arises only if that act would harm someone else, or ultimately result in a burden to society). We'll have to trust reasonable judgment here and ultimately abide by the rule of law (apologies to any anarchists).
If you choose not to wear your seat belt, and sustain worse injuries than you would have if you had worn it, society has no obligation to provide even emergency care. IOW, if you sustain injuries as a result of a decision you made, you shouldn't be a burden to anyone.
I'll grant that if you accept that society has a responsibility to provide health care, it logically follows that they have not only a right, but an obligation (since they pay with my money) to minimize their financial risk. But then, as other have pointed out, where do you draw the line? Ban skydiving? Rodeo riding? Driving without a seat belt? Running? Eating fatty foods? The only logical conclusion is that they must allow ALL these activities, and not pay for the consequences to the individual that makes a choice to engage in them.
Of course there is pragmatism? What’s your point?
I am having a hard time with this statement. How would you substantiate it? Who cleans up the mess and often pays for it? I am not aware that critically injured people are ignored, either by ambulances or hospitals.
Now I wonder about whether mandated safety standards and devices required of vehicle manufacturers is appropriate. What is appropriate? I see these things as consumer protection measures, because industry will too often be responsible only when coerced...FDA and all that.
My point was that I was not aware of any pragmatism by libertarians, seemingly uncompromising by definition.
RealGun, you’ve seen some examples of compromise in this very thread.…
The fact that libertarian-types acknowledge the role of government in enforcing contract law, protecting private property from theft, and protecting the citizenry from murder is a pragmatic stance.
I suspect that you confuse libertarian with anarchist. They are not the same.
If I had, I wouldn't have asked. Help me out, if you don't mind. Tyring to learn something here, not be a putz.
Gee, I hope that wasn't too painful for them, but I appreciate the help in understanding the philosophy. All I know is that my interest in libertarian thought was killed by the RLC's inability to assimilate with the GOP in the slightest. Their platform reads EXACTLY like the LP.
I don't mean to create a thread diversion here but might challenge something another threw in.
I think his point was that, right or wrong, it makes it law of the land.
Of course, the statement itself is not true, as I pointed out. In Raich and again in Stewart, the justification for federal regulatory authority was found to be lacking by the 9th circuit court.
Seatbelts are a red herring!!!!!!!!!Only to expand police power!
If I don't wear a seat belt I hurt no one!!! The Fed gov. is supposed to regulate indusriies and not the public!!!! Mandate seatbelts in every car SOLD and you have regulated an industry. Mandate all people wear a seatbelt and you just set public policy that is not in the Fed governments granted power. Not wearing a seat belt is not a public risk it is a private one ! Just like drinking or smoking:banghead:!
Publius: You came the closest to a straight answer from the Rabbi but I really wanted him to answer your question on whose side he was on....
But he performed a matrix-esque dodge with the Child Porn red herring !!
Last-to the Rabbi- As was stated, child porn violates a childs right not to be violated as they can not legally give consent to have sex or be involved in any kind of business contract....
Also, any sentient being has these rights by virtue of being,period. I have a right to self defense. I have a right to shoot myself. I do not have a right to shoot anyone else. See the consistency? :banghead:
Quite all right. There is a socialized medicine thread for the seat belt argument, but don't worry. I'll be around to see that Raich and Stewart get mentioned and linked on every page of this thread, for as long as it lasts, so we'll never get too far off topic.
Yeah, I'm still kind of waiting to hear what a bad person I am for thinking that possession of kiddie porn is NOT interstate commerce, but I guess he dropped that line of argument.
I knew the "Let 'em die in the street" argument was right around the corner.
Such people have always been a burden to someone. It might be family, it might be private philanthropy, it might be religious orgs. But whoever pays for it, society as a whole pays for it.
That is the worst argument ever, and you know it. As I said, 70 million people who have used drugs is not the same as 70M drug users. You would need to show a clinical study of drug users broken down by type(s) of drug, length of abuse, severity of abuse, and physiological and economic results. I dont know whether such a study exists.
And children don't have any rights either. That is why they cannot legally give consent or be legally bound by any contract.
It's not the same, but it's the outcome predicted by drug warriors over and over again, despite the lack of evidence.
This all started because you started in saying that high achievers are hardly typical of drug users, and in fact, loser behavior like stealing and ending up on welfare is typical. Well, I agree that high achievers are not typical, but if drug use predictably and consistently led to personal disaster and social costs for everyone and crime and corruption and all those horrible things, why haven't I seen more of those outcomes among people I know? Why haven't we seen more of those outcomes among the 70 million or more who have tried illegal drugs?
I think the reason is because drug use does not typically lead to disaster, as the drug warriors keep saying it almost inevitably will.
This is getting a bit like trying to convince a gungrabber that 50 cal rifles are OK for ordinary citizens like my brother to own. "Oh, but they're so dangerous!" So list the crimes committed using one. "Oh, but they can shoot so far, stray rounds will be raining down around us!" When and where has that ever happened? "I don't care, they're really, really dangerous, even if most people are like your brother and just blow up the occasional malfunctioning appliance or watermelon!" How is that dangerous? "Well, any fool can see that the gun is really dangerous, and can shoot really far!" Well, yes, it is, and yes, it can, but that doesn't mean that people will abuse those capabilities. "Oh, but they could, and it's just really dangerous, and we've just got to protect the cheeruns!"
WHOA! Two totally different things there. Did you really say that?
Children can and do have a right to life, long before they actually have the mental capacity to make informed decisions on legal matters. Elderly people retain that right after they lose that ability. Where the heck did you get the idea that you need to be legally competent to sign a contract in order to have rights?
The reason for the latter is that the children DO have rights (not to be taken advantage of) and we are protecting those rights. I don't think your logic holds on this point, Rabbi.
Really? Where is this right to life found?
No, I suspect if you research English Common Law you'll find that children are basically chattel, legally speaking.
Separate names with a comma.