Posted on 02/12/2002 12:42:09 PM PST by Texaggie79
A question entered into my mind today as I thought of LOTR and their Oscar nominations. What if the rings of power from LOTR did exist. Would Libertarians support all citizens right to be able to own these rings? After all, rings are property.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. I seriously wish to know the answer to this question.
Can you explain how your opposing views can be constitutional?
You, yourself have claimed that you see no Constitutional violation in prohibiting nukes. What about imbreeding? Should that be prohibited? Both have potential victims. But there mere act harms no one directly.
This has nothing to do with drug policy, because in that case what each property owner decides should happen on his property is not at all his choice - it's a federal matter. In any case, this contradicts what you said earlier, namely, that the public has a right to set policy on private property if a certain behavior is "too dangerous." Following your logic of before, it means that the same public that decides that drug use is too dangerous to allow on private property, may also decide that private roads should also have a 90 mph speed limit, no matter what. Again - do you intentionally misunderstand the points?
No, I support it's complete legalization.
So, the government should be the pot dealer?
Well it was said in a discussion on the legitimacy of speeding laws.
that the public has a right to set policy on private property if a certain behavior is "too dangerous."
Really it is just prohibiting a behavior or substance that is too much of a threat to the rest of those in the community.
it means that the same public that decides that drug use is too dangerous to allow on private property, may also decide that private roads should also have a 90 mph speed limit, no matter what.
If they saw a threat to people OUTSIDE of the property, yeah. I guess if the road was too close to another property and cars were getting too close to going out of the property.
So, the government should be the pot dealer?
Does the government deal alcohol and tobacco?
Again, you misunderstand. Your speeding law example has nothing to do with the way drug laws are implemented. Specifically, with respect to their jurisdiction on private property. In other words, your "example" has no parallel with drug laws that you were asked to compare.
Really it is just prohibiting a behavior or substance that is too much of a threat to the rest of those in the community.
So, then you agree if the community decided driving 100 was "too dangerous" they could ban it, even on private property?
If they saw a threat to people OUTSIDE of the property, yeah. I guess if the road was too close to another property and cars were getting too close to going out of the property.
Again this example has no parallel to the drug war. People possessing crack do not pose a threat to others outside the property, yet, it is illegal. I'm getting the idea that you are incapable of rational debate.
>>So, the government should be the pot dealer?
Does the government deal alcohol and tobacco?
If the "dealer" makes money off the transaction, then yes. The taxes on these cost far more than the product, so the government rakes in more money than the producers, distributers and sellers combined. They might not directly sell, but they license the sellers and they rake in the bucks. Maybe the government is more like the kingpin than the dealer, to keep within the analogy. Interestingly, being a cocaine kingpin is a non-violent offense that nets the death penalty, but being the alcohol or tobacco kingpin is just the government doing its thing - and enforcing its laws at gunpoint.
I didn't intend for it to be. I was discussing speeding laws with Alan to discuss speeding laws, not drug laws.
People possessing crack do not pose a threat to others outside the property, yet, it is illegal. I'm getting the idea that you are incapable of rational debate.
Oh course they do. I'm beginning to think that you are incapable of rational thought.
Interestingly, being a cocaine kingpin is a non-violent offense that nets the death penalty
As well it should, IMO. There can be no responsible use of cocaine, when sold for recreational purposes.
but being the alcohol or tobacco kingpin is just the government doing its thing
Vise taxes are a state issue. If the people of a state want it taxed, so be it.
The mere act of conspiracy to murder harms no one directly, till the action takes place, yet is obviously constitutuional law. - It's the intent to kill another that is the crime.
Nukes have one purpose, mass destruction, thus possession has criminal intent to kill.
Incest, if the intent is the inbreeding of defective children, could certainly be form of child abuse, & be a lesser criminal intent.
Possession & use of opium poppys on private property for personal use? Show and prove a criminal intent to greviousy harm others.
Thus the prohibition of private acts on private property is unconstituional, unless a real criminal intent to violent action is demonstrated under due process.
Automatic weapons have the intent to kill.
Incest, if the intent is the inbreeding of defective children, could certainly be form of child abuse, & be a lesser criminal intent.
The act of incest is not to purposefully create defective children. If a defective child results it is not by intent, but a consequence of an action. So answer the question. Should Billybob and Elly May be allowed to reproduce, even if they don't intend to make deformed children?
The rings were made by someone and then given to someone else, if my understanding of the mythology is correct. The owners of the rings can then do what they want with them. If they use them to infringe on the rights of others, they should be prepared to pay the price of doing so in the form of reciprocated hostilities from those whose rights they infringed upon.
The One Ring corrupts all who use it, and it invariably results in the destruction or downfall of those who would use it to enslave others, because slaves never stay slaves forever. Eventually there is an uprising, and the masters are thrown out.
As to the question, "well, what if everyone could have one", the value of the rings in question comes from the fact that they are scarce. If everyone can have one, then there is no advantage to having one, and the question is moot.
Automatic weapons have the intent to kill.
They are also the arm of choice for self defense. You want to ban them? -- 'The authorities' effectivley did, because of the last prohibitory mess we got into.
--------------------------------Incest, if the intent is the inbreeding of defective children, could certainly be form of child abuse, & be a lesser criminal intent.
The act of incest is not to purposefully create defective children. If a defective child results it is not by intent, but a consequence of an action. So answer the question. Should Billybob and Elly May be allowed to reproduce, even if they don't intend to make deformed children?
Silly question. - How you gonna stop them without a cop cam in every bedroom? You really think we need prohibitory law against incest? Or law statutes on who can reproduce? -- I don't. And the constitution backs me up.
Not for me. I'm happy with a glock. But some others may choose them. Then again, someone may choose a daisy cutter for self defense.
You want to ban them?
No
How you gonna stop them without a cop cam in every bedroom?
You aren't, but you aren't gonna stop people who are taking drugs in their bedroom either. But I surely don't wan't to give an ok to anyone that wishes to creat children with their siblings. Not in my community. The threat to the child is too great, IMO.
And the constitution backs me up.
On what? That the gov can't make laws on a dangerous form of sex? Do I really need to bring up sodomy?
BTW I have actually enjoyed your last few posts. Hope you continue to exercise your newfound kindness.
You aren't, but you aren't gonna stop people who are taking drugs in their bedroom either.
Exactly! This is the whole point, -- prohibitions can't work without destroying individual rights to life, liberty, or property.
But I surely don't wan't to give an ok to anyone that wishes to creat children with their siblings. Not in my community. The threat to the child is too great, IMO.
You don't have the power to 'give the ok' on who can create children, or to prohibit private behavior. --- Neither does the state. 'We the people' never gave such power to government.
------------------------- And the constitution backs me up.
On what? That the gov can't make laws on a dangerous form of sex? Do I really need to bring up sodomy?
-- Why would you? - Same principle. We just went through the 'harmful activity' routine with drugs & guns & nukes & incest. -- Two queers sodomizing each other in private are not a 'danger to society' of criminal proportions.
Maybe thats the main problem you have, -- no sense of proportion.
Of course the question to Libertarians these folks on how far they will go, before they draw a line, if they draw a line at all, is valid. Something I hope to drill into some of their heads wish you would consider, that though you refuse to see it, is that either there can be NO law already too many laws against too many any "threatening" things, no matter how impendingminor the threat is, or laws CAN be made on things that cause too much risk, yet have either no effect whatsoever, unintended consequences that make the problem worse, or merely serve as a corrupt method for the lawmakers themselves to further their political or economic agendas contrary to the stated purpose of the law itself. In that case, we must decide who gets to determine recognize that individuals should decide for themselves when something is too threatening. We then arrive at our founders ideas of communities and STATES SELF DETERMINATION AND FREEDOM FROM OPPRESSION
------------------------------------
See Tex, it doesn't take much to change your own piece into something entirely different. I stuck to your chain of logic and everything. I guess it comes down to the presuppositions in the argument itself and which assumptions one wants to assume are most important. The argument may very well be valid both ways. I think the problem is that in this type of debate, both sides tend to back themselves into a corner by reducing their own position to an extreme, in order to demonstrate some sort of philosophical underpinning to their primary belief system. The extremes on each side then look utterly ridiculous to somebody arguing on the opposite side and that is why these debates never really go anywhere. I am claiming this same flaw for myself even.
This approach, taken by both sides, causes those who don't subscribe to the extreme views, yet has a bent in one particular direction, to suffer the assumptions of their adversaries (i.e. I'm a Druggie and You're the Taliban). In reality, some small issues that are important to an individual may very well determine which philosophical argument one might advance in the debate, yet have little bearing on the overall true political label one might earn if their entire list of issues were to be examined.
What do I mean by this? Health Freedom and the Freedom from Burdensome Regulation / Taxes are two of my primary interests. Hence, I want to limit governement it tends to hurt me personally in this regard, often claiming to have the protection of others in mind. This causes me to be libertarian in my mindset. The drug debate gets close to the health freedom debate because drug war tactics are used against legitemate and safe health choices to protect the medical industry.
I do not do drugs nor do I advocate their use however. What would earn me a label as a conservative in a traditional sense? I tend to be quite moralistic (although I don't care to have the government impose this on others), I am pro-life (I consider the unborn a child), I believe immigration laws should be enforced (yet quality people with responsible sponsors and something to add to this country should be allowed in), I believe in personal responsibility, hard work, limited government assistance to the TRULY needy only, states rights, etc. I could go on with things in which we might find common ground.
The whole purpose of this was for you to see where I am coming from and to ask you to at least cosider the other side of the argument. It is not that I disagree so much (entirely at least) with your statements. It is more that I have little faith in the government's ability to limit itself to a reaonable level. I fear the slippery slope and history has already demonstrated that we are heading down it at a rapid pace in many regards. You may believe we are climbing up it actually, so I guess it all comes down to perspective and individual issues.
I would agree with you on the silliness of a claim that speed limits on PUBLIC roads are wrong. But I would also suggest that you confuse the libertarians objection to you telling them what they can and cannot do with a completely different personal opinion on what the best choice is. I object to you telling me I can't do drugs. I choose personally not to do drugs however. A rational libertarian would not argue with your right to tell people not to give you $100. After all, you are determining for yourself what you are willing to accept. This does not mean that they will choose to automatically do the opposite. They would argue with the a contention that the government has the right to tell them to give you $100, you to accept it, or any other combination of agreements that might occur between you and them in a PRIVATE transaction. The rational liberatarians act the way they do because they fear the government intervention that is inappropriate (or corrupt) in many cases and impedes one's ability to control their own personal destiny.
Your opinion is that drug use on the part of others serves as a personal threat to you. So you should argue this point, more than a belief that one man has the right to rule over another (or a collective has the right to rule over a minority). Personally, I fear corrupt governments more than I do pot smokers. I feel corrupt governments have killed more innocent people or made them more miserable.
Sorry, this fails the laugh test. Have a nice day.
"Be careful, Frodo, for this is the One Automatic Weapon, and it seeks evil."
Indeed. And the thing is, I agree with that statement as well.
The argument may very well be valid both ways. I think the problem is that in this type of debate, both sides tend to back themselves into a corner by reducing their own position to an extreme
Well it's because they can. It's similar to asking someone if they would defend a klansman's right to talk about white supremacy on public land, since they defend the freedom of speech.
I defend community standards. Normally that would include such things as drug laws, laws on allowing your yard in a neighborhood to grow up 10 foot in weeds, laws on if and where porno shops and strip clubs can be, ect. However, in the extreme since if some freak occurrence happened and you had a community, county, or state of people that wished to prohibit wearing bell bottoms or halter tops, then they could do so. On the other hand, you defend personal freedom to it's extreme. You focus on the fact that it takes government out of our lives, and that's fine. However, you then have to defend your neighbors right to have all his crack friends over with prostitutes running around high and naked in their front yard for you kids to see.
The whole purpose of this was for you to see where I am coming from and to ask you to at least cosider the other side of the argument.
I not only considered it, but I agreed with it a few years ago. I still lean libertarian in many other aspects. With drugs though, I saw 2 key issues. First, after my experiences with drugs and people who did hard drugs in high school and college, I realized that yes, there will always be certain people that are just gonna blow their lives on drugs, but to legalize would open up that same path to millions of more people. And second, I realized that either communities be able to combine and form standards or you make it a free-for-all for every community where there can be no congruency.
I completely understand your stance to limit government wherever possible. And it is a noble stance. It is just that I don't see it possible to leave them out of the drug issue. At least not at the local level.
You say it is a slippery slope. Well, I can see where the federal drug war is. But with local standards, I don't really see it. To me, it has gotten a bit better on the local level. I mean, go back and read some of the city, county and state laws that were on the books. Things like, no drinking orange juice between 3 and 5, or women cannot swing on their front porch after sundown. There are some pretty stupid laws, that have been made and ratified. But it appears we are making progress. The slippery slope I see is the one that says we can bend the constitution. Like, have federal drug laws, without an amendment, or that the right to arms can be ignored or misinterpreted by states. But the biggest slippery slope I see is the FED. That is where my concerns lie. It is what needs to be halted and reversed to a smaller body. And I also see a very slippery slope on legalizing all drugs. Sure, at first people may still turn their noses up at hard drugs and see them as the vile things that they are. But after kids who have grown up with cocaine and heroine sitting next to the cigarettes in drug stores, it starts to not look all that bad. And when they grow up around it, even when they see all the people destoying their lives, still, it's just a little white bag you can buy at your local stop and go, it can't be all that bad.
You speak of trusting people to be responsible. I share that trust, but when made to choose, I trust many people with the power to create over I do with fewer who have the power to destroy. I trust that the people of communities, and states will be more responsible with the power to set standards than they would with the power to get fried out of their mind and become machines of destruction.
The best kind of government is the easiest to change and reform. We have learned that the FED is pretty much impossible. Even when you get great, honorable, conservative men such as our great President into office, it is still pretty much a pipe dream to think you can change the direction of the giant train that is our federal government. So my concern is keeping the fed from being able to tell states and communities what THEY can and cannot do.
Many Libertarians try to turn the argument that people who do not like a state or city standard can choose to not move there or if they live there, they can leave. They say, if I live next to a drug user, I can leave. The problem is, though, when there are not standards, cities, communities, and neighborhoods can only change for the worse. How many neighborhoods have you seen that went from a nice looking middle class neighborhood, to a run down poverty stricken one? My own grandfather is the last one from his original nice neighborhood. All it took was one family, or person to move into one house, and let it go down hill. Their yard always looked horrible, their kids were loud at night, and bullied the other kids around, and people started moving out. Who would take their place? People that didn't mind living next to crappy looking yards and rowdy neighbors. What kind of people usually don't mind that? People that live that way themselves. So more good neighbors move out, and more bad ones move in. Now, my grandfather has gone from a nice pretty house where he could enjoy a carefree life to a prison looking fortress, to keep people out, where he cannot even leave tools in his locked tool chest in the back of his truck.
Now tell me how many neighborhoods have you seen that have done the opposite? How many run down neighborhoods had people moving out, because a neighbor moved in who kept his yard spick-and-span, and remodeled his house to look very high class? The same would go with the drug situation. You would have millions of good families move out of homes and neighborhoods because of a drug user next door, but never will you see a drug user move because he has a nice family next door.
I respect your position on this, and I am aware you do it out of vigilance and what you believe is the best way to preserve our freedom. I just believe that you have not truly seen the consequences of what you ask. And I do think that we probably agree on most issues. I also think that we might have a better chance at limiting the government if we all join to fight the federal drug war. While I think that keeping drugs from entering our borders is a good thing, I think many of the unjust practices in the WOD must be stopped. People's desire to stop drug users have become so obsessive that they look the other way when the feds erode our rights in order to find drugs. Just as they do with many other things, like child pornography, and terrorists. All these things should be illegal, but many the tactics used are blatant disregards of our Constitutional rights.
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.