Addicted to the Drug War

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | December 28, 2001 | Ilana Mercer

[AKbear]

Ok, but if the state constitution didn't have the protection from unreasonable search and seizures, then the Bill of Rights kicks in. Either way, you still have that protection.

Using the 21st amendment as a foundation for a drug war still violates the 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments, or the same protecions from the states constitutions. Either way, a drug war could not be fought without violating rights.

[Jhoffa_]

If the beastial sexual behavior (or any sexual behavior) were intentionally displayed to the public who could not reasonably traverse without encountering it, then I think an argument could be made that psychological duress was inflicted upon those who had to witness such actions, and a civil remedy was in order.

I fail to see where this breaches your "No force, no fraud" rule.

It would seem to fall under the "property right's" category.

I mean, after all.. who is "Government" to define what's moral and what's not? Who are they to tell you what you can and cannot do on your own property?

[Demidog]

Sorry about that. I thought you had written 7th.

[Jhoffa_]

Of which you are well aware, you hypocrite.

Actually, I was not aware of the content of that paticular posting..

But, go ahead and wrap yourself in tin foil if it makes you feel better..

Or, you could try immitating OWK, Don h, Demidog or one of your more "balanced" Libertarian counterparts..

I don't see their posts vanishing..

[Demidog]

The remedy to this problem is to recognize that it is possible to rape an animal and that it is a crime. Yes, it seems odd that one would say killing an animal is more acceptable than having sex with it. However, I do think that animals are to be afforded a semblance of respect and if we can arrest a man for cruelty to animals then certainly bestaility would be cruelty.

[Roscoe]

Roscoe, the only hatred I have in me is towards those who would destroy my country and the Constitution.

Like George Washington and the Founding Fathers? I'll take the real Constitution over the imaginary one you've propounded.

[Jhoffa_]

However, I do think that animals are to be afforded a semblance of respect and if we can arrest a man for cruelty to animals then certainly bestaility would be cruelty.

Doesn't this fly right in the face of the Libertarian concept of Property Right's though?

I mean, hey.. your animal.. Who is Government to tell you how to use it?

[OWK]

I mean, after all.. who is "Government" to define what's moral and what's not? Who are they to tell you what you can and cannot do on your own property?

You seem to misunderstand the notion of "civil remedy".

A civil action, is not a criminal action. Government would not move (in this specific situation) to restrain the individual's actions.

Instead, individuals who were actually harmed (psychologically or otherwise) by the action in question, would state their case before a civil court, and seek monetary damages pursuant to the harm caused.

The payment of civil damages to the injured parties by the offender, would do far more to curtail his activities than does the current "slap on the wrist" of a judicial system we have today.

[donh]

Does that mean the IRS can regulate if or where you can work?

Ask Al Capone.

I asked you. Does the IRS have the legal right to control if and where you work? If the IRS wasn't prosecuting a genuine case of tax evasion against Al Capone, but actually intended to curtail where and if he worked, than they were ILLEGALLY controlling where and if he worked, quite outside their legal charter, now weren't they?

[tpaine]

Look, you and I both know that as soon as a hole is punched in the Libertarian ideology that it cannot stand up..

--- So? Show us the hole, you dolt. Punch away.
979 posted by tpaine

Why can't I make your wife a prostitute, or screw a goat in front of your kids, or sell them drugs?
What are you gonna do TPaine? Pass a Law? - #982

-------------------------------------

Here is your original idiotic "question", --- that would supposedly punch a hole in libertarian thought.

What a joke.

[Zon]

I fail to see where this breaches your "No force, no fraud" rule.

You and failure are go hand in hand.

It would seem to fall under the "property right's" category.

Only a person can be a victim. If a person has been harmed they may file a claim ageist the agressor.  In regard to initiation of force, fraud and coercion used against a person, I offer this... The ultimate purpose of the jury is to decide if harm has been done to the person claiming to be a victim and to what extent the person has been harmed. All jurors will be informed that they have the option of jury nullification. Objective law; The Point Law  nullifies agenda law and ego law.

[Texasforever]

Using the 21st amendment as a foundation for a drug war still violates the 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments, or the same protecions from the states constitutions. Either way, a drug war could not be fought without violating rights.

Then you are saying that the 21st amendment is "unconstitutional"?

[Alan Chapman]

I still wonder why it is wrong to elect senators instead of them being appointed.

The purpose of the Senate was to act as a check against the House. House members were elected by the people and Senators were elected by state legislatures. It was believed this would curtail the consolidation of power in the federal government. It would not be in the best interest of state legislators to elect Senators who would subjugate state rights. They'd be cutting their own throats politically to do so. Since Senators are now elected directly by the people there is no check against federal power grabs other than the people themselves.

[Jhoffa_]

I see..

But, doesn't this open the door to "town councils" and "blue laws" and such?

I mean, if your neighbors can get together and decide how you should behave.. ?!?

Remember, people like L Ron Hubbard sued to harass and to drain his opponents financially.. He didn't do it to "win" the suit by any means.

[Demidog]

Doesn't this fly right in the face of the Libertarian concept of Property Right's though?

Not really. Bestiality is an initiated act of aggression that has no beneficial purpose. If I raise sheep and slaughter the lambs, I am providing sustainence for others while rightfully receiving remuneration for my hard work and care.

If I commit an act of bestiality in public I am neither providing life to my fellow man (meat) or treating the animal with respect. I have committed a crime and should be punished.

[AKbear]

Yes, like George Washington. And Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and many other founders.

Violations of the Constitution, no matter who it is perpetrated by, must be condemned. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It must be adhered to, or if you disagree with what it says, change it. The mechanisms where put in for changing it for a reason. They realized it was not perfect. In fact, they admitted that in the debates and in the Federalist Papers.

But words mean things, Roscoe. The words of the Constitution mean things. They restrict the government from abusing the rights, the unalienable rights, of it's citizens.

If you choose to ignore the words of the Constitution, you will lead us to that thing you rail about all the time: anarchy.

[Roscoe]

********************************************************

Scenario #1: While having his morning coffee, Marvin Middleclass happens to glance out his dining room window. His neighbor, Wally Whackjob, after digging a latrine in the front yard, uses it.

Marvin makes a telephone call, and soon Calvin Clipboard of the health department pays a visit. Whackjob tells Clipboard that there is a Constitutional right to keep an open latrine, then yells, "Personal property! Freedom!!!!" Clipboard writes Whackjob a citation, and tells him if the open latrine isn't filled in, the city will take care of it in and send him a bill.

No warrant, no trial.

*******************************************************

Scenario #2: While having his morning coffee, Marvin Middleclass happens to glance out his dining room window. His neighbor, Wally Whackjob, after digging a latrine in the front yard, uses it.

Marvin makes a telephone call, and eventually Zachary Zealot of the Libertarian Justice Services pays a visit. After talking to Whackjob, Zachary confronts Marvin. Taking a last drag from his roach, Zealot flicks it into the stinking latrine on the other side of the fence where it sizzles out. Turning his glassy glare towards Middleclass, Zealot says, "Hey, Man! It's like his property, so quit hassling him!! And don't call us no more!!! If you have a problem, take it to court!!!!"

*******************************************************

[Jhoffa_]

Here is your original idiotic "question", --- that would supposedly punch a hole in libertarian thought.

The question was worthy of the audience.. In this case, you TPaine.

Now, go change your foil.. you are beginning to smell.

[Roscoe]

Violations of the Constitution

I'll take the real Constitution over the imaginary one you've propounded.

[AKbear]

No. But you can't pick and choose which amendments to the Constitution to use. You have to take into consideration all of them.