That will be the day.
Posted on 01/11/2003 10:15:11 AM PST by tpaine
Reasonable ones do not?
Correct. They regulate the public aspects of objectionable behaviors. Criminal law covers other aspects of harmful behaviors.
And you know the difference?
I think most of us do. You communitarians however, want restrictive prohibitions:
-- You think it's sane to insist that government has the power to prohibit liberty.
Sane is irrelevant. It is a fact that government has the power to prohibit liberty with due process.
Wrong. -- Government has the power to jail convicted criminals, -- but only by using due process in both the writing & enforcing of the law.
You think it's sane to insist that government has the power to prohibit liberty.and that anyone who protests this power is crazy.
Crazy is irrelevant. Maybe not in your case, no, but in general.
As I said, you are using catch 22 'reasoning' in claiming that protesters are crazy. Your bureaucratic ploy is very relevant. -- It's a main part of your communitarian agit-prop on the issue.
Anyone who doesn't realize that government has the power to deprive someone of liberty with due process is ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, Amendments V and XIV.
Nice twist, right from the Communitarian Manifesto playbook.
Yes, the government has the power to jail convicted criminals, -- but only by using due process of constitutional law.
You cannot see the forest for the trees buddy.
I am 100% with you that government has no power to regulate, prohibit, or do anything else that interferes with our personal lives unless we violate the right of another.
Problem with you is, you cannot see that different people have different standards in which they see their rights infringed.
Why can't a community get together, like fellow libertarians are trying to do in New Hampshire (I think it is) and decide on what they see is right violations, and, therefor set their own community/state standards?
If I wan't to live in a community free from crack users, why can I not get together with a community and put together a township, or county that prohibits that within it's boundaries? And if you disagree with said prohibition, don't go in.
Is this not how our founders set up our states and counties?
"-- government has the power to prohibit liberty with due process. --"
Wrong. -- Government has the power to jail convicted criminals, -- but only by using due process in both the writing & enforcing of the law.
Tex opines:
I am 100% with you that government has no power to regulate, prohibit, or do anything else that interferes with our personal lives unless we violate the right of another.
Problem with you is, you cannot see that different people have different standards in which they see their rights infringed.
The problem with you is, you cannot 'see'/understand that we have established Constitutional standards, the 'Law of the Land'.
Why can't a community get together, like fellow libertarians are trying to do in New Hampshire (I think it is) and decide on what they see is right violations, and, therefor set their own community/state standards?
They can. They can set reasonable standards for public behaviors, using due process under Constitutional law.
If I wan't to live in a community free from crack users, why can I not get together with a community and put together a township, or county that prohibits that within it's boundaries?
Because any political subdivision is subject to upholding our Law of the Land. -- You can however, put together a privately owned communitarian community with strict regulations on drugs, morality, etc. -- Feel free, as long as you don't violate individual rights in doing so.
And if you disagree with said prohibition, don't go in.
Exactly. - Many condo associations would welcome you. If you break their rules, out you go, all quite legally.
But evicting you is it, -- they can't jail you.
Private associations are run by whoever owns/controls them. -- Within reason.
Is this not how our founders set up our states and counties?
Nope, our State & local governments are run by 'we the people' pledged to the rule of Constitutional law. -- They can jail you for lawbreaking.
Get the difference yet, texbaby?
-- I'm sure you do, but like paulsen, you just don't want to 'see' it.
Communitarian-ism is a form of social blindness.
If I wan't to live in a community free from crack users, why can I not get together with a community and put together a township, or county that prohibits that within it's boundaries?
Because any political subdivision is subject to upholding our Law of the Land.
-- You can however, put together a privately owned communitarian community with strict regulations on drugs, morality, etc.
Many condo associations would welcome you. If you break their rules, out you go, all quite legally. But evicting you is it, -- they can't jail you.
Our State & local governments are run by 'we the people' pledged to the rule of Constitutional law. -- They can jail you for lawbreaking.
Get the difference yet, texbaby?
-- I'm sure you do, but like paulsen, you just don't want to 'see' it.
Communitarian-ism is a form of social blindness.
And if crack is against the law.... that's exactly what they do.
Yep; - such prohibitions are the issue here.
You say.... well they can't prohibit any drugs because that is liberty and property, but when it comes to nukes, you say, well that's reasonable. Why aren't drugs? Because you say so?
You're going in circles again tex. You asked that question yesterday, and I answered. Remember?
Give me the line in the constitution that says NO property can ever be prohibited at any gov level, then argue that nukes can't be outlawed either, since you don't want to look hypocritical....
Again, -- the 'line' is in the 14th. We discussed it yesterday. -- You left that discussion about cocktail time.
-- Now here you are, - its deja vu all over again.
Get help kid.
It is appropriate your post should be "666"...
It is appropriate your post should be "666"...
The devil that wrote this made me do it:
"-- You are an extremely rude little man (or woman.)
I couldn't give a damn what anyone here thinks I stand for. It's interesting that on a thread about free speech, I have to put up with little pipsqueaks like you jumping on all my posts.
Now please run along. I am sure there are people to squeak at on other threads.
Well, to be fair, he was an extremely rude little man (or woman.)
Takes one to know one.
You know him?
How clever you are. However, even you could think about taking lessons from texaggie79, or mojave/roscoe, -- past masters of wit.
L M A O!!!! PWNZORED!
j/k tpaine. we still love you crazy man!
But back to the issue. You still are required to give another reason why we can prohibit nukes and bioweapons from private citizens other than "it's reasonable". Because see, I say prohibiting crack is "reasonable". So your argument is moot until you give another argument for why it's ok .
That will be the day.
There. I fixed it. The citizens of each state decide how they will live together. Condos and communitarian communities are not necessary.
Which restricts individual liberties. Which is what I said.
"Government has the power to jail convicted criminals"
More than that. They can jail, fine and execute.
"but only by using due process in both the writing & enforcing of the law."
Government is only required to use individual due process when life, liberty, or property is at stake in the enforcement of constitutional laws. Government is not required to use individual due process when writing laws. They may set the drinking age at 21, for example, even though an individual 20-year-old can prove himself to be more responsible than those older than he.
There you go again, misreading my position. We can reasonably regulate use/storage of nuclear/biological/chemical materials, [much is privately owned] but we can't constitutionally prohibit possession.
Because see, I say prohibiting crack is "reasonable".
And I've explained why your prohibitions on drugs & guns are unconstitutional.
So your argument is moot until you give another argument for why it's ok.
Neener neener. - Grow up.
The federal government? Well, the federal government has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, and "to regulate" includes "to prohibit". Or so the U.S. Supreme Court says:
"Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin."
-- Brooks v. US, 267 U.S. 432 (1925)
"In fact in the 1920s they had to pass an ammendment to ban alcohol ..."
Yes, an amendment was passed. But it was desired, not required.
"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."
-- www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html
"... and it was repealed."
Yes. Section 1 of the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. That returned everything to where it was.
But then Section 2 was added, removing the power to regulate alcohol from the federal government and returning that power exclusively to the states.
"It cannot limit the rights of the people, because our freedom doesn't come from the Constitution, its ours with birth."
The Constitution protects your freedom of speech, but it is limited -- it is illegal to libel or slander someone, for example, or yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Congress may reasonably regulate your constitutionally protected rights.
You dream for the day that I'll be required to answer correctly.
How telling.
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.