Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hank Kerchief; y'all
The author claims:

The fundamental rule of logic is: there are no contradictions.
Nothing can both be and not be, no proposition can be both true and not true, no choice is both right and wrong, no act is both good and bad.

If so, there is a fundamental flaw in our Constitutions "republican form of government"; - wherein the States of the Union can enact laws that regulate/prohibit both individual behaviors, and the possession of 'dangerous items' of property, - in order to ensure that 'community standards' [the will of the majority] are followed.

He goes on to say:

It means an individual owns his own life, because he either owns it completely, or to some extent is a slave, and slaves are not free to choose. -
- It means he must be free to keep and use the product of his efforts because it is an extension of himself, and one cannot learn from the consequences of one's choices if someone else is in charge of them. That's called property rights.


Constitutionally enacted State regulations are "both good and bad." - They protect community standards while regulating an individuals liberty. - Not so?

5 posted on 05/16/2007 8:45:50 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine

“Constitutionally enacted State regulations are ‘both good and bad.’ - They protect community standards while regulating an individuals liberty. - Not so?”

I’m not a collectivist, I have no idea what “community” (or tribal, or gang, or class) standards are. I only know what objective standards are. Anything that, “regulates,” is not “liberty.” Anyone or anything that regulates what an individual does with their own person or property is bad. I’m sure your namesake would agree with me.

Hank


8 posted on 05/16/2007 11:24:06 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: tpaine

I think the author refers to, but overreaches when he does so, the law of excluded middle. It refers to statements of fact, however. Good and bad, by comparison, are statements of values. Not only they vary from person to person, but even a single individual struggles to ascertain what is good and what is bad. The law of the excluded middle simply does not apply here.


12 posted on 05/16/2007 11:06:52 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: tpaine

I’ll take the Constitution any day over mushy-headed libertarian “philosophy.”


13 posted on 05/16/2007 11:12:26 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: tpaine

The good vs. bad analogy is a reference to logical thought. You’ve missed the point.


15 posted on 05/17/2007 6:25:08 AM PDT by Misterioso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson