SOaB!!!!
Posted on 06/09/2004 7:11:35 PM PDT by Coleus
SOaB!!!!
Bump
When they came for the Prohormones, I wasn't a juicehead so I didnt speak out.Then they came for the Ephedra and the norepinephrine, but i wasn't fat or tired, so I didn't speak out.When they came for the Vitamins.....
Yours is a wholesale surrender to socialism. Rather than fight the assertion that people are owed entitlements (perish the thought, now that Republicans are too buying votes), you would foresake the concept of rights altogether.
As conservatives, our core values are :
As a free people we reserve a nearly infinite set of non-enumerated rights. And no one owes you help in exercising a single one of those rights.
Rights + responsibility. Are these not conservative values?
Yeah the objective parameter is that rights shouldn't include silly things. You don't have a right to wear paisleys, you don't have a right to pick your nose, you don't have a right to see he Jackass movie, you don't have a right to have chocolate cake for breakfast, you don't have a right to be an annoying git. It's just logic man, when you establish something as a right then you're declaring that any interference with your ability to do it is wrong, so then suddenly if the vitamin industry goes TU because nobody wants their stuff this is a terrible thing that's destroying the rights of American.
HOw else do you account for banning Ephedra, in the midst of a National obesity epidemic....?
No, mine is a wholesale aknowledgement to the dangers of activist courts. I'm fighting the assertion that any damn thing you can think of is a right.
As you said "nearly infinite" that means not everything is a right, taking vitamins is on that list.
You don't have a right to wear paisleys, you don't have a right to pick your nose, you don't have a right to see he Jackass movie, you don't have a right to have chocolate cake for breakfast, you don't have a right to be an annoying git.
If others can dictate the smallest details of my life, perhaps you can explain our country's claim to liberty? How does your version differ from that of oppressive countries?
You should look at what's happened in the EU. No vitamins without a Dr's perscription.
Because non-enumerated rights do not include actions that infringe upon the rights of others (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), they are said to be nearly infinite.
Your post doesn't respond to this point: "Your argument, if taken to its logical conclusion would preclude [...] the right to bear arms, lest government be compelled to provide you a weapon."
Liberty includes the liberty to tak vitamins.
The difference is in thinking that just because the fed isn't allowed to regulate it that means no one is. Back in the old days the 10th Ammendment was respected and states and cities could ban stuff the fed couldn't. That was when we understood that not everything a person wanted to do was a right. Now we try to stop the fed from doings stuff in a way that will also stop the states and cities. What's wrong with a city deciding it's a vitamin free zone, we've still got dry counties in this country and the reason we do is that we've never taken the silly step of declaring there to be a right to drink alcohol. The mass production of rights disempowers state and local governments, thus killing states rights. The liberty is in letting states and lower levels of government decide things for themselves instead of forcing them to allow every single made up psuedo-right just so we could keep the fed from writing a bad law.
Here's another:
It would also preclude freedom of religion, lest government be compelled to provide you a God.
Check your federalist papers. Madison wanted the 2nd ammendment to include distribution and training. IMHO it would have been cool if he'd won that argument (even though Jefferson's objections were correct, a tyranical government just would have distributed substandard weapons and poor training) just because it would kill all the stupid 2A arguments the liberals have today.
Then of course there's JFK citizenship marksmanship program (which was eventually killed by Clinton) that actually did just what Madison wanted but for a nominal fee (I think it was $100, for which you got an M1 and 8 hours of training).
LOL
Is a right to eat food "inherently moronic"?
I copied it and sent it to everyone on my personal email list.
Though I am a libertarian I am not unwilling to compromise. In exchange for limits on the federal government I would accept state's powers to regulate such as you suggested.
In that way, Americans could vote with their feet to a state or locality most agreeable to their way of life. You could go somewhere that vitamins are regulated, I could go someplace they are not. The "laboratories of democracy" would be the judge of our actions.
Come to think of it, that's precisely how our country was set up. Too bad we've become 'smarter' than that!
Irony...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.