Thumper
Member
Cosmo,
We agree.
We agree.
The second American civil war...
- Thread starter Preacherman
- Start date
- Status
Tamara
Senior Member
rock jock,
*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?)
*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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Senior Member
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...
rock jock
Member
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
Member
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
Senior Member
No, we're attempting to establish a baseline of what you think a majority can tell you to do.
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...
rock jock
Member
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.
Actually, I believe that this document was correct when it asserted:
We 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.
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.
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?
Or 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.
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
Member
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.
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.
Poodleshooter
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?)
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
Member
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
Member
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.
So, 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?
Bingo.
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?
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!"
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?
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.
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
Member
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.
States Rights
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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 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
Member
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.
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.
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?
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
- Status
