Posted on 05/20/2009 2:10:08 PM PDT by FreeKeys
That was based on the general tenor of your posts. If I was in error, I apologize. Was I?
Quote of the day!
“Do I think the government has no business indocrinating our kids through public schools or passing “hate” laws, or using the interstate commerce clause to get in everyone’s business?”
In fact I mean “yes” to that, lol. Caught by a double negative.
“Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness”
Of course they don’t actually have to use guns, because the mere threat of force is enough to cause compliance
He used a really bad metaphor to make a point about the use of force by the government. He also used convoluted thought in his attempt to make that point. Whether or not his actual point is correct makes no difference when he’s not able to clearly communicate his point.
His language faithfully reflects the depth of his thought. The devil in these matters is in the details. If a president elected with 51% of the votes promulgates his favorite policy, that policy may be against the wishes of 49% of the population. ANY policy is against wishes of at least one member of the population.
If shallow libertarians such as Penn had their wish, there would be no nation -— just a bunch of “individuals” roaming the forests in perpetual arguments and disagreements.
Child porn is NOT non-coercive by its nature. It involves real kids who are incapable of giving informed consent to what happens to them. That is a bad example.
“Do you favor the current war on some drugs?” would be a better question, for the use of mind-altering substances IS a voluntary act. If one is over 18, the age when someone may enter into contracts, join the service, etc., there is no other issue involved. So, do you favor the current trashing of the Constitution in the name of protecting folks from themselves, AKA the war on some drugs?
I like Penn’s rants.
“use of mind-altering substances IS a voluntary act”
The first time maybe. By definition, we cannot know whether the unaltered person would choose to do it the 2nd time, because their mind has been altered.
“If one is over 18, the age when someone may enter into contracts, join the service, etc., there is no other issue involved”
Incorrect. Contracts can be invalidated if there was coersion, or if the signee was misled in some substantive way, or if the contract itself breaks the law. Or if the person was mentally incapable of signing a contract, for example if they were high on drugs, and could prove that they were high on drugs, it could be argued that a temporary insanity existed at the time of signature, thus invalidating the contract.
I've said the same thing here over the years and been called a "Utopian nutcase" for it. At least I'm not alone.
"If 'more government' is your answer, are you sure you should be asking the question?" -DC
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.