Tamara
Senior Member
Heh.
Yeah, they can hardly wait to not tell people what to do.
The second American civil war...
- Thread starter Preacherman
- Start date
- Status
Heh.
Yeah, they can hardly wait to not tell people what to do.
Moparmike
Member
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.
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.
I would join the "Leave Me The Hell Alone" party. Infact, I will start one tomorrow. Maybe I can run for something.
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.
I would join the "Leave Me The Hell Alone" party. Infact, I will start one tomorrow. Maybe I can run for something.
dustind
Member
Rock Jock: Would you care to give an example?
I also doubt any civial war is starting.
I also doubt any civial war is starting.
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
I agree. That's the whole point of the document.
I disagree here. See:
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?
You answer first. Please take the 9th amendment into account when composing your answer.
Thanks.
rock jock
Member
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.
Right, thats what they wanted for Texas - to be left alone.
Tamara
Senior Member
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
Member
Well, I'm glad you clarified that for us. "Real rights" are those that Tamara approves of.
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.
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)
Kaylee
Member
Wow! right on cue!
keep it clean folks.
-K
Thumper
Member
Nope...not in most cases. But what if I'm contaminating the groundwater, for instance?
Cosmoline
Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
Member
"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.
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.
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.
"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
Member
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?
Do you need a community law?
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
Member
It's pretty easy to make the case, historically, that changing any of the promised First Ten kinda invalidates the whole shmear.
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
Member
"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
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
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.
- Status
